Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For Borough of Bath, in the room of Captain Charles Talbot Foxcroft, deceased.—[Sir George Hennessy.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

ROAD TRANSPORT SERVICES.

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Paper in the name of the Minister of Transport (Colonel ASHLEY):—
That it be an Instruction to all Committees to which Bills containing provisions restricting competition with road transport services provided or to be provided by the promoters, or prejudicing the impartial exercise by a licensing authority or their functions with regard to the issue of licences to ply for hire with omnibuses, have been or may be referred during the present Session, that they do leave out such provisions as aforesaid.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to this Notice of Motion in the name of the Minister of Transport, I have been able to consider it now that it has been put into intelligible English—which yesterday it was not, owing to an error in printing—but I should not like it to be moved to-day until I have considered further the question whether it is really in order as an Instruction or not.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Asiatic Steam Navigation Company Bill [Lords].
Lancashire Electric Power Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

London Electric Railway Companies (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill.
Metropolitan Railway Bill.
Great Western Railway Bill.
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill.

Bills committed.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with)

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Imperial Continental Gas Association Bill [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PATENT OFFICE.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 4 and 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the total increase in the staff of the Patent Office to date since the 31st of December last; whether any additional staff will be commencing their duties within the next six weeks; and whether he can state, approximately, the average number of applications that a members of the staff deals with in the course of a year;
(2) approximately, the number of months that an applicant for a patent has to wait after making application before the first official act on is taken in the matter?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As the answer is long, I propose, subject
to the hon. Member's concurrence, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of the answer given last week, that arrears were accumulating at the rate of 76 per week, has the right hon. Gentleman any ground for hoping that the additional staff will be able in a reasonable time, to reduce to nothing this accumulation of arrears?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If it does not do so entirely, I think there ought to be a further increase of staff. This is a staff which requires special training. I think, however, that there was a very sudden accumulation of applications entirely out of proportion to the ordinary number in a normal year. I am advised that it would be well to see whether it means a large normal increase year by year. I quite agree that the staff ought to be adequate to deal in a reasonable time with the normal number of cases that arise.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that it is important to keep up the classification of inventions, which is a necessary part of Patent Office work?

Following is the answer:

The total increase in the staff of the Patent Office between the 1st January and the 28th February, 1929, was 15, of whom eight were assistant examiners and seven were of other grades.

During the six weeks from 1st March, about 12 additional assistant examiners are expected to commence their duties.

On the average, each officer of the examining grade deals annually with 63 applications accompanied by complete specifications, 125 applications accompanied by provisional specifications, and 42 complete specifications filed in pursuance of applications originally accompanied by provisional specifications.

An application for a patent must be accompanied either by a complete specification, or by a provisional specification which may subsequently be followed by a complete specification. In the case of applications accompanied by complete specifications an applicant has, on the average, to wait seven months before the result of the first official action (examination and search) is communicated to him; in the case of applications accompanied
by provisional specifications the result of official action is usually communicated within a fortnight; in the case of complete specifications filed in pursuance of applications originally accompanied by provisional specifications an applicant has to wait, on the average, about three months before the result of official action (examination and search) is communicated to him.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated amount paid over to the Exchequer for the latest available year as the surplus of income derived from fees for patents, etc., over the expenditure of the Patent Office?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The latest year for which figures are available is 1927, when the surplus, as shown in the Report of the Comptroller-General of the Patent Office, was £112,939.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of the very large sum which this Office is passing to the Exchequer, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that applicants for patents are entitled to a little more consideration and not the delay which has occurred recently?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is a superficial criticism. I do not say it in any offensive way. When one goes into the matter one finds that the surplus arises entirely out of the claims for the renewal of patents which have already been granted. The actual fee which is charged for the consideration of an application for an original patent, I am advised, is inadequate to cover the amount of work done.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is it not a fact that there is a profit made out of this Office, and that applicants are kept waiting for something like nine months? Is not that a thing that needs looking into in the future, as well as consideration of the question how far in the past steps have not been taken to keep the Office up-to-date?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think that is quite a fair criticism. Obviously, the applicant for a patent who is charged a fee which does not actually cover the amount of work done is not being charged too much. I do not think it is necessary, in the interests of the taxpayer, to see that fees for renewals,
which are paid by owners of successful patents, are exclusively used for reducing below the cost the fees on original patent applications.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the United States the Patent Office is nearly 18 months in arrear?

WRITING ASSISTANTS (APPOINTMENTS, EDINBURGH).

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of writing assistants to be appointed to Departments in Edinburgh from the examination held in October last; the names of the Departments to which they will be assigned; and whether these appointments will be in accordance with his previous announcement?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Two vacancies in Edinburgh, one in the Inland Revenue Department and one in the Post Office, have already been filled by the appointment of candidates successful at the competition for situations as writing assistant, announced in June, and held at Edinburgh in October last. No further vacancies in Edinburgh to be filled from that competition have yet been reported. As regards the last part of the question, I assume that the hon. Member refers to the announcement made in the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) on the 22nd November last. He may rest assured that no appointments of writing assistant will be made which are not in accordance with the terms of that announcement.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BANKRUPTCIES (FEES).

Captain GUNSTON: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that in small bankruptcy cases of £150 and less nearly the whole of the estate is swallowed up in fees payable to the Board of Trade, legal expenses, and trustees' remuneration, and that practically nothing is left for division among the creditors; and will he look into the matter with a view to having it remedied by legislation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The incidence of costs in smaller bankruptcies is undoubtedly heavy, although, generally speaking, not so heavy as is suggested in the question. This matter has received the constant attention of my Department, and many special reductions in the scales of fees have been made for small estates: but the revenue from bankruptcy fees is designed to cover the cost of bankruptcy administration, and any further reduction would involve a deficiency.

Captain GUNSTON: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to a recent case in which the Thornbury Rural District Council were one of the creditors? Is he aware that in this case an estate of £150 shrank to £2, after the various fees and expenses had been paid?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot say that my attention was called to that particular case, but there are statutory duties put upon the Receiver in Bankruptcy, and they involve in some cases very considerable investigation. As long as Parliament requires those duties to be discharged, they must be paid for.

Captain GUNSTON: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is not a question whether the fees are in accordance with the scale, but whether the scales are in accordance with county court requirements?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The scales, as I have said in my answer, have been very considerably cut down in the case of solicitors and surveyors and other professional men, and I am advised that they could not be cut any further if competent people are to be employed to do the work.

Captain GUNSTON: If I supply my right hon. Friend with particulars of a case, will he look into it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly.

RESEARCH GRANTS (STEEL).

Commander BELLAIRS: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what associations of producers or manufacturers, apart from agriculture, receive grants for research work; and whether any grant is made for research work directed to the increased use of British steel instead of foreign timber in many industries?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer is long, my hon and gallant
Friend will perhaps agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following Research Associations, formed by the industries named, under the auspices of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for the purposes of co-operative research, are at present in receipt of grants from that Department: photographic; scientific instruments; woollen and worsted; boot and shoe: cotton; linen; rubber; cocoa, chocolate, etc.; non-ferrous metals; refractories; launderers; leather; cutlery; electrical; silk; cast iron; flour millers; foodstuffs; paint and varnish.

Grants are also made to the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers for research work on the manufacture and use of metallurgical coke, and to the Lancashire and Cheshire Coal Research Association in connection with the survey of the coal seams in Lancashire and Cheshire.

As regards the second part of the question, no grant is made by the Department for research work with the specific object mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend.

IRAQ.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the value of British, German and United States of America exports to Iraq in the years 1926, 1927 and 1928?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I will circulate the reply to this question in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following statement shows, in so far as figures are at present available, the value of exports to Iraq from the United Kingdom and the United States of America, as recorded in the trade returns of the exporting countries. In both cases the figures include a small proportion of re-exported goods.

From the United Kingdom:

1926, £3,004,000.
1927, £3,822,000.
1928, £2,742,000.

From the United States of America:

1926, $983,000 £202,300).
1927, $640,000 (£131,600).

The only relevant data concerning Germany relate to the imports into Iraq in the year ending March, 1927, which (as recorded in the trade returns of Iraq) amounted to 45,00,000 rupees (£337,500), goods in transit through Iraq being included.

MUNITIONS (EXPORT).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH (for Mr. CECIL WILSON): 7 and 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why, in the monthly accounts relating to trade and navigation, no information is given as to the countries to which arms, ammunition and military and naval stores are exported:
(2), as regards the exports of arms, ammunition and military and naval stores exported in 1926 to the amount of £3,800,916, in 1927 to the amount of £3,847,401, and in 1928 to the amount of £4,709,918, what these consisted of; and to what countries they were exported?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In order to keep the cost of the monthly accounts as low as possible, and to ensure their early publication, only the principal particulars of external trade are included in them. Fuller particulars are published in the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom. Details of the exports referred to, in 1926 and 1927, are shown on pages 452 to 462 of Volume III of the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom for 1927. The corresponding particulars for 1928 have not yet been compiled.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the fact that there is general agreement, both in this country and in the League of Nations, as to the desirability of having the fullest possible information with regard to the manufacture of munitions, will not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to assist in giving such information publicity?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: These questions ask, not about publicity regarding the manufacture of munitions, but about the export of munitions, and, if the hon. Gentleman will look at the Annual Statement of Trade he will see that a most exhaustive analysis is given of the exports.

Mr. SMITH: Is it not the case that the Annual Statement is a year late when
it is published, while what is really required is immediate publication of the information?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is quite true that the Annual Statement is somewhat late, but I think it is right to confine the trade accounts, which are published as early as possible in each month, to the most important trade statistics. If these accounts are to be expanded to anything like the scope of the vast volume of the annual trade returns, it must involve delay, and all representations that I have received on the commercial side with regard to the trade accounts emphasise the vital importance of getting them out early.

Mr. SMITH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that in regard to this particular industry it is very desirable that he should assist in concentrating public opinion on the question?

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to investigate the methods employed in this country by American manufacturers of talking picture apparatus; and whether, if he finds the development of the British talking picture industry is being seriously retarded by the action of the American manufacturers, he will be prepared to consider further legislation to prevent the objects of the Cinematograph Films Act from being defeated?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As at present advised I do not think there is any occasion for Government intervention.

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some of these films the greater part is taken up by the talking instead of the film matter, and that consequently the producers will get behind that portion of the Films Act which refers to long films?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure that I follow the question. I think the Advisory Committee have considered that on one occasion, and I am told that there has really been no complaint either from exhibitors or producers in this country up to the present time.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the matter to the notice of the Advisory Committee, so that there may be no evasion of the Act in future films?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not the least intention of allowing any evasion of the Act. If the hon. Gentleman can show me that there is any evasion either taking place or contemplated, I shall be very glad to bring that to the notice of the proper authorities, advisory or otherwise.

Mr. SANDEMAN: Do the talking films come under the same Act?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would like notice of that question. If a long film is a long film, it comes under the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RETIRED PAY AND PENSIONS (OFFICERS).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the amount of retired pay or pension payable to the various grades of officers from colonels upwards; giving the average amount paid per person in each grade and the number receiving retired pay or pension in each grade for the latest available year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The hon. Member will find this information on pages 261 and 262 of Amy Estimates, 1929.

CIVILIAN EMPLOYÉS, GIBRALTAR AND MALTA.

Mr. KELLY: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of civilian employés engaged by the War Department at Gibraltar and Malta in December, 1928?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Excluding men employed on fluctuating work, such as unloading transports and works services, the numbers of War Department civilian employés at Gibraltar and Malta on 1st December, 1928, were approximately 230 at Gibraltar and 330 at Malta.

Mr. KELLY: Is there any intention of increasing that number?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. The numbers fluctuate somewhat, but
there is no policy such as the hon. Member indicates.

BOMBS IN WARFARE (DISEASE GERMS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has information to the effect that bombs or shells carrying disease or plague germs were used by the German forces on the Western Front during the Great War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir. The War Office has no other information than that contained in the Official History of the War, Volume II, Medical Services, Chapter 17.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, but does not that give negative evidence that any projectiles containing germs were used?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better read Chapter 17.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman not refute this latest war lie which has been raked up?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I really think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better read that chapter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have read it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: So have I, and I am not prepared to say "Yes" or "No" to the question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that Chapter 17 there is no evidence at all that projectiles for carrying germs were used at all?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is true that there is no evidence, but there is a suspicion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In that case, had we not better lay this war lie once for all?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am very ready to lay any lie at any time, but I cannot do better than refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to Chapter 17, in which the whole case is discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

RATE COLLECTION, GLASGOW (ALLOWANCE).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of factors in Glasgow who collect rates with rent, the amount of rates collected by them on which 2½ per cent. is payable by the Glasgow Corporation; and the estimated increase that will accrue to them as the result of the Government amendment to the Local Government Bill for Scotland?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The number of factors in Glasgow who collect rates under the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, is approximately 230. The amount of occupiers' rates falling to be collected by owners was in 1927–28 £1,062,582. Under Clause 20 of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, the allowance to owners for the collection of occupiers' assessments would fall to be fixed by the Sheriff within the limits stated in the Clause, I am unable to anticipate what that decision might be.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us what the increase will be, if the Sheriff takes advantage of the amendment which is being proposed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. It would be quite impossible for me to pre-judge what the Sheriff may decide.

SMALL INDUSTRIES, SCOTLAND.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that some doubt is felt by assessors in Scotland as to how small productive industries such as blacksmiths' shops, in which none but the proprietor and members of his family are employed, are to be classified under the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928; and whether, with a view to ensuring that such businesses will receive rating relief, he will amplify the directions contained in paragraphs (11) and (14) of the Explanatory Memorandum issued for the information of assessors in Scotland (Stationery Office Publication 49, 9999, 1928)?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no information to the effect of the first part of the question. As regards the second part, each specific case falls to be decided by the assessor subject to the appeal provided by the Valuation Acts, and I have no power to give an authoritative decision on such matters. I think the Memorandum referred to sufficiently indicates the considerations involved, and I cannot usefully add anything to its terms.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that the memorandum indicates how certain other classes of cases are to be dealt with, but that a considerable amount of doubt has been expressed about this class of cases; and could not some direction be given as to people who are employing in their businesses no labour other than that of their own family?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Each of these cases must be judged on its merits, and it is impossible for me to do so here.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Arising out of the last answer, will it not be possible to have different decisions in different counties?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In every case, the decision of the official can be challenged.

Mr. SHINWELL: Could not we have a decision in respect of one-man businesses?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: If we are to wait until the decision of the assessor is challenged, does it not open up an interminable vista of litigation which could be avoided by a simple direction being given now in the memorandum?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There is no reason to alter the present procedure. Each individual can appeal on the merits of the case, and it would be quite impossible for me to express any opinion on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

BURSARY SCHEME, ROXBURGH.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount spent by the Roxburghshire education authority under their bursary scheme in the last financial year; what sum of the amount so spent was for the
provision of free books to the bursars; and what is the estimate for the present financial year?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The expenditure of the Roxburgh education authority under their bursary scheme in the last financial year was £2,783, including £224 in respect of free books to bursars. The corresponding estimates for the present year are, £2,760 and £194, respectively.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Tory majority on the Roxburghshire education authority refused to give to a member of the authority the information which has now been given to a Member of this House?

SCHOOLCHILDREN (BOOKS AND STATIONERY).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many education authorities make full provision for the supply of books, stationery, etc., free, to the pupils attending schools under their control, giving the names of such authorities?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that the information desired is not available. Steps are being taken to obtain a special return from the education authorities and when the results have been tabulated I will communicate with the hon. Member.

FAIR RENTS.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what officer in the new Department of Agriculture is responsible for the fixing of first fair rents?

Sir J. GILMOUR: This responsibility does not rest on an individual officer but on the Department, on consideration of reports submitted by their experts.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: As it is quite clear that it is a responsibility which should rest mainly upon the technical officer, has this technical officer access to the heads of the Department in the same way as he had direct access to the Board when it was in existence?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Under a Departmental organisation, the ultimate responsibility must rest with the Department and not with the individual.

SMALL HOLDINGS, WEST LOTHIAN.

Mr. SHINWELL: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in
view of the state of employment in the shale area of West Lothian and the distress arising therefrom, he can arrange to provide suitable land in the district for the provision of small holdings and allotments for unemployed persons?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Department of Agriculture for Scotland have recently circularised parish councils in the distressed mining areas in West Lothian urging them to consider the provision of allotments as a means of relieving distress. So far as the provision of small holdings is concerned two schemes have already been formed in the district, and others will be considered as opportunity offers, but I would remind the hon. Member that, owing to the need for negotiations, which may be followed by statutory procedure involving hearings, and to the subsequent need for the provision of buildings and equipment, the creation of small holdings cannot offer a speedy remedy for distress from unemployment.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: What chance is there of a revival in the shale industry?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

HOUSING TRANSACTION, BURNTISLAND.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the town council of Burntisland some time ago acquired three unoccupied cottages situated near the burgh reservoir, which have since been restored and made habitable at the expense of the council in order to be used as stores and as a dwelling-house for a burgh employé that the buildings were practically valueless when acquired; that the town council entered into an arrangement under which their payment for the houses took the form of the erection of a house at Balmule Farm, Fifeshire, for the original owner of the cottages, the approximate value of which is £500, and in respect of which the owner received a subsidy through the Dunfermline district committee; and if he will inquire whether the whole facts relating to this arrangement were within the knowledge of the district committee when the subsidy was paid, and cause inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of this transaction?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that an arrangement on the lines set out in the question was entered into by the town council of Burntisland, but as my approval is not required by statute, I am unable to say whether all the facts are as stated. As regards the last part of the question I understand that the general terms of the arrangement were known to the district committee when the subsidy was paid, but that the conditions of their scheme of assistance to private enterprise having been complied with the district committee considered subsidy was properly payable. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that there is any ground for inquiry on my part.

Mr. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the whole of the circumstances connected with this transaction—by which the council gets three valueless buildings for the value of a new house—have been disclosed; is he satisfied that the subsidy was properly paid in view of those circumstances; and will he inquire more closely into the matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, I cannot judge whether the local authority made a good bargain or a bad bargain. That was for them to decide. As regards the payment of subsidy, all the circumstances, as far as I know, were before the local authority upon whose shoulders rests the responsibility.

NAIRN COUNTY COUNCIL (LOAN).

Mr. JAMES STUART: 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury under what Regulation or statute the Public Works Loan Board, in making loans to local authorities, is limited as to the amount of such loans to 50 per cent. of the sale proceeds of saving certificate issued within the area of the borrowing authority during the 12 months preceding the application for the loan; whether he is prepared to reconsider this arrangement in the case of the application of the county council of Nairnshire for a loan of £815 to provide offices for the sanitary inspector, in view of the exceptional circumstances which have resulted in practically the entire sale of certificates for both county and burgh of Nairn being effected in the burgh; and whether he is aware that the Scottish Board of Health has recommended to the Public Works Loan Board that a loan should be arranged?

Mr. SAMUEL: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Savings Certificates and Local Loans, etc. (Command Paper 1865), where he will find a full account of the matter. The point of the special arrangement with regard to savings certificates is that it enables a local authority to obtain loans for many purposes for which the Public Works Loan Board would not normally lend at all. The arrangement is necessarily based on the known sales of certificates in the area, and would become unworkable if other considerations had to be taken into account. I regret that it is impossible to make an exception in the case referred to by my hon. Friend. In reply to the last part of the question, the assent of the Scottish Board of Health is in some cases a necessary preliminary to the consideration of a loan application but does not affect the discretion of the Public Works Loan Commissioners.

Mr. STUART: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this means that the county council of Nairn are practically debarred from borrowing any money at all, owing to the fact that all the sales of these certificates have taken place in the burgh?

Mr. SAMUEL: My hon. Friend wrote me very fully upon this matter, and I made it my business to go into the subject carefully, and I have come to the conclusion which has been stated, because I think the scheme will become unworkable if we make alterations, and that we must adhere to the Regulations.

SUB-POST OFFICES (RATES).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the Treasury has refused to make a contribution in lieu of local rates to the corporation of Glasgow and other local authorities in respect of premises occupied by sub-postmasters, which premises have been held by the Courts to be occupied solely by such sub-postmasters as servants of the Postmaster-General and for the use and service of the Crown?

Mr. SAMUEL: The remuneration paid to sub-postmasters is intended to cover the payment of rates by them. It has not been the practice to make a Government contribution in lieu of rates in the
case of the premises which they occupy. The Government have not felt able to alter established practice on the strength of certain decisions which are of local application only and may not be universally accepted as binding in other areas.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the decision of the Courts of Scotland that these sub-postmasters are not liable for rates, and that the Corporation of Glasgow are, in consequence, losing a large sum? Will he take steps to see that this loss is met?

Mr. SAMUEL: I did not know of these cases in the Scottish Courts. As the rule is not of universal application, I think it might be helpful if the Corporation of Glasgow or some other authority took steps to secure a decision in the Higher Courts of Justice, and then we might perhaps have a basis for a reconsideration of the arrangements.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received a copy of a resolution, unanimously adopted by the Aberdeen-Angus Cattle Society, drawing attention to the losses suffered by Scottish breeders of pedigree stock in consequence of the intermittent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in various parts of England, and urging the necessity of applying more stringent regulations to prevent the introduction of the disease into Scotland and suggesting that the penalties for failure to report outbreaks of the disease be increased; and whether he will state what action he proposes to take?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. I much regret the loss suffered by all breeders of pedigree stock owing to foot-and-mouth disease, but I do not consider that it is practicable to take any further precautions to prevent the introduction of infection from abroad. I will circulate details of existing precautions in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I would add that the maximum penalty for an offence under the Diseases of Animals Acts was increased by the Diseases of Animals Act, 1927, from £20 to £50.

Following are the details:

Measures for Preventing Introduction of Infection from Abroad.

(i) Prohibition of landing of live animals from abroad, except—

(a) From Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, subject to certain conditions;
(b) Canadian store cattle for feeding purposes, subject to the provisions of the Act of 1922, and
(c) Fat cattle or sheep from Canada, the United States, the Union of South Africa (including the Mandated Territory of South West Africa), Southern Rhodesia, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, subject to slaughter at an imported animals' wharf at the port of landing within 10 days after landing.

(ii) Prohibition of the landing of fresh carcases and animal products from the Continent of Europe, with certain minor exceptions.
(iii) Prohibition of landing of hay and straw from countries infected with foot-and-mouth disease.
(iv) Requirement that packing materials used for goods and meat, whether imported or not, shall not be brought into contact with animals and shall be destroyed when their use as packing material is finished.
(v) Requirement that all waste animal foodstuffs or swill containing animal matter, whether of foreign or home origin, shall be boiled before being fed to or brought into contact with animals.
(vi) Arrangements have been made with the South American Governments for the imposition of stringent regulations designed to prevent the export to this country of carcases of animals infected with or exposed to the infection of foot-and-mouth disease.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

DISTRESSED AREAS (CLYDE).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received from the Clyde Joint Committee of Trade Unions a request that that area should be included as a distressed district for relief; if he is aware
that distress among large numbers of people is very acute; if he intends to include the Clyde area as desired; and, if not, can he state his reasons?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am aware that unemployment in the shipbuilding industry has been severe and that hardships have had to be borne during the period of depression. From inquiries I have made, however, I understand that the prospects of the industry appear to be improving. The tonnage of work begun in the last quarter of 1928 was greatly in excess of that begun in the preceding quarter and an improvement on the last quarter of 1927. Orders for a large amount of new work have also been given. A good deal of tonnage is becoming worn out and must be replaced and in addition it is likely that recent technical advances will necessitate extensive modifications of equipment on many coasting ships. In these circumstances, I see no sufficient reason why the area should be scheduled as a distressed area nor do I consider that the proposal of the Joint Trades Committee to raise a special fund is expedient.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that practically the same answer about improved trade in the Clyde has been given ever since this Government came into office, but that it is like Charlie—it is long in coming?

TRANSFERRED WORKERS, PLYMOUTH AND DEVONPORT.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 74.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any miners have been transferred to Devonport and Plymouth under the transference scheme; and, if so, the number of those placed in work in Devonport and Plymouth respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Since the 5th October, 54 men from depressed mining areas have been transferred by the exchanges to employment in Plymouth, and three to employment in Devonport under the Industrial Transference Scheme.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether any of these men have been given work in the dockyards?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir.

VOLUNTEER LEGION, WALSALL.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 72.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the organisation of a volunteer legion at Walsall to supply unemployed workers for relief and public work without payment of wages; whether the Employment Exchange recognises such schemes for provision of work; and if unemployment benefits continue to be paid?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am aware that proposals of this kind have been put forward, but so far as I know they have not as yet been put into practical effect. If men are engaged in accordance with these proposals it will be for the statutory authorities under the Unemployment Insurance Acts to decide whether unemployment benefit is payable; I cannot say beforehand what the decision would be.

Mr. ADAMSON: Is any encouragement being given by the hon. Gentleman's Department to that organisation?

Mr. BETTERTON: I would rather not say anything one way or the other about this scheme at the present time, because a deputation is corning to the Ministry of Labour on this point, and I do not want to prejudge the question. At the same time, I feel bound to point out that we shall have to consider what effect a scheme of this kind would have when put into operation upon normal wages and labour conditions.

Mr. ADAMSON: Would it be possible to give a summary of the decisions arrived at after the deputation?

Persons on the Registers of the Employment Exchange at Stornoway.


Date.
Numbers on Registers.
Date.
Numbers on Registers.


1927.

1928.



3rd October
…
…
…
1,076
1st October
…
…
…
1,063


10th October
…
…
…
661
8th October
…
…
…
915


17th October
…
…
…
414
10th October
…
…
…
742


24th October
…
…
…
371
22nd October
…
…
…
459


31st October
…
…
…
365
29th October
…
…
…
456


7th November
…
…
…
364
5th November
…
…
…
433


14th November
…
…
…
371
12th November
…
…
…
416


21st November
…
…
…
535
19th November
…
…
…
540


28th November
…
…
…
950
26th November
…
…
…
1,123


At 22nd October, 1928, all the unemployed insured men on the Registers of the Stornoway Employment Exchange were resident in Ross and Cromarty, and none were resident in Inverness-shire, of which Harris forms a part.

Mr. BETTERTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question after I have received the deputation.

Mr. BATEY: Is the deputation which is coming to the Ministry against this scheme?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, I do not understand so. They are coming to discuss the merits or demerits, and the advantages and disadvantages.

Mr. PRESTON: Has the Parliamentary Secretary had any invitations from the local authorities to discuss this question?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am nut sure about that. I could not say.

HARRIS.

Mr. KELLY: 75.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed on the Island of Harris in October and November, 1927 and 1928, respectively?

Mr. BETTERTON: There is no local office of the Ministry of Labour in Harris, and the only figures available relate to persons on the registers of the Employment Exchange at Stornoway. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving such figures for the periods referred to.

Mr. KELLY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what efforts, if any, are being made by his officers to place these men in employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member will be interested to know that an analysis that we made last October showed that there were no unemployed men in Harris at all.

Following is the statement:

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

AMALGAMATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many amalgamations have now been made in the coal-mining industry; and how many pits are affected?

Mr. TINKER: 32.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of amalgamations that have taken place since the passing of the Mining Industry Act, 1926; and will he say what proportion they comprise of the total number of collieries in England, Scotland and Wales?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I made a report to Parliament on this subject on 5th November last. One scheme involving 19 pits and about 16,300 workpeople has since been approved by the Railway and Canal Commission, and another affecting 9 pits and 6,100 workers is now before them. The amalgamations completed since August, 1926, cover about 16 per cent. of the industry.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied with this rate of progress?

Commodore KING: It is not for me to express an opinion, but I think the answer shows that considerable progress has been made.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not the Minister's business to try to hasten on amalgamation?

Commodore KING: The Government have already done that in the Mining Industry Act.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it is clear that general amalgamation will not operate as a result of the voluntary efforts of the coalowners?

Commodore KING: No, Sir. I do not think anything like that.

Mr. SHINWELL: Do not the figures just given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, showing that only 16 per cent. have been amalgamated since 1926, prove that voluntary effort is insufficient?

Commodore KING: I do not agree.

Mr. BATEY: Are the amalgamations as numerous as the Government expected when they passed the Mining Industry Act?

FUEL RESEARCH STATION.

Mr. SHINWELL: 33.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether an arrangement can be made for an extension of the activities of the fuel research station with a view to the production of oil from coal on a commercial scale, so that the station can become productive as well as experimental in its operations?

Commodore KING: No, Sir. It is considered that the main activities of the fuel research station should he devoted to providing authoritative technical information and data for the general benefit of the community.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is Government money to be expended solely for the purpose of assisting private enterprise, and is the community to gain no benefit from the operations of the Fuel Research Department?

Commodore KING: I think the general community do obtain benefit from the assistance of private enterprise.

CLOSED PITS, WEST LOTHIAN.

Mr. SHINWELL: 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many pits have been closed in the district of Armadale and Blaskridge, in West Lothian, during 1927 and 1928; and whether there is any prospect of any resumption of operations at these pits at an early date?

Commodore KING: Four pits are closed at the present time which were working at the beginning of 1927. I have no information of the owners' intentions with regard to re-opening them.

Mr. SHINWELL: In view of the extraordinary distress that prevails in that area, is it not possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to ascertain how far the recent schemes of the Scottish coalowners have contributed to this serious position, and will he not be able to use his influence in the matter?

Commodore KING: It would not be in the interests of the industry if I were to
exert influence to open pits which the owners did not think it would be wise to open.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman no responsibility for the men at all?

WAGES.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 35.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is taking any steps to afford any protection to miners when colliery companies refuse to pay the recognised minimum wage?

Commodore KING: Means already exist whereby the terms of a contract of employment can be enforced, and I have no reason to believe that these are not adequate.

Mr. SMITH: When an employer says he is not prepared to pay the recognised rate any longer and the men must either accept lower rates or be dismissed, cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman do anything in the matter?

Commodore KING: The hon. Member will realise that there is machinery under which wages can be reviewed by local wages boards, and the local wages board will say whether or not the wages are proper.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that in a large number of collieries in nearly every coal-producing county men are threatened with dismissal and victimisation if they insist on the recognised rate of wages?

Commodore KING: No, I am not aware of that fact.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If instances are brought to the notice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, will he take steps to deal with them?

Commodore KING: The hon. Member does not understand the position. It is not for me to take steps. If there is any breach of the law or any breach of contract, it is for the workers themselves to take action.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Have not the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Government some duties and obligations towards 1,000,000 men?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD GRANTS (MORAYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL).

Mr. J. STUART: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will reconsider the decision of the divisional road engineer, Edinburgh, in refusing payment of an additional sum of £304 to the Morayshire County Council in respect of their expenditure on road improvements under the 75 per cent. grant scheme, in view of the fact that the total amount for which grants had already been authorised by his Department for 1927–28 would not have been exceeded with this addition as a result of the saving effected on the 50 per cent. and 33⅓ per cent. classification grants; and whether he will give instructions that in such cases overpayment may be made and charged against the grant on which there has been a saving, provided that such a course results in no loss to his Department?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I am unable to agree to the transfer of expenditure from one grant to another, but I am always prepared to consider an application relating to unavoidable excess expenditure on a particular scheme provided that good cause can be shown and that, wherever possible, prior sanction has been sought. In this case the excess was largely due to an unauthorised extension of the proposals upon which the grant was based. The county council were aware of the procedure which should have been followed, and I am unable to find any reason for departing from the usual practice of my Department.

Mr. STUART: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend realise the difficulty of estimating accurately in advance for a work of this sort, and, where there is a saving under one head, is it not reasonable that that saving should be transferred to meet the additional expenditure under another head?

Colonel ASHLEY: The difficulty of estimating accurately in advance is always taken into consideration in deciding whether the excess expenditure shall be allowed or not.

HEAVY VEHICLES (DAMAGE TO PROPERTY).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether,
in view of the damage now being done to house property by heavy transport, he will consider legislation to limit the size and weight of vehicles using the public roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer by hon. Friend to the answer given on the 13th November last to the hon. Member for the St. George's Division of Westminster (Mr. Erskine), of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not possible, pending legislation, for my right hon. and gallant Friend to issue regulations limiting the size of these "Dreadnoughts"?

Colonel ASHLEY: All vehicles on roads are strictly limited as to size.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Could not my right hon. and gallant Friend in towns put something in the nature of a speed limit on these heavy vehicles with solid tyres?

Colonel ASHLEY: The law is that the local authorities can apply for speed limits, and then, after a local inquiry, the Minister can, in certain localities, if he so thinks fit, impose a special speed limit.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not possible for my right hon. and gallant Friend to insist that the local authorities carry out their duties?

Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly, but the duty to which my hon. Friend refers is the enforcing of the speed limit, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

ROAD MATERIALS.

Mr. MURNIN: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to a specification issued by the Clackmannan county council inviting tenders for road binding materials; whether he is aware that foreign bitumen is exclusively specified and British tar is expressly excluded; Whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to support local authorities in specifying only foreign materials; and whether a grant from the Road Fund will be made to the Clackmannan county council during the financial year governed by this tender form?

Colonel ASHLEY: My attention has not been drawn to the specification referred to, but I am making inquiries into the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport what local authorities used foreign road-stone during the past year in connection with schemes for which he gave grants; and the average difference in price per ton between British and foreign stone in these districts?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no information which would enable me to give the particulars asked for. My hon. Friend is aware that circular letters have been issued impressing upon local authorities the desirability of using British materials wherever practicable.

MOTOR OMNIBUSES (STOPPING).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that motor-omnibuses often stop suddenly without giving any intimation of their intention, thereby causing danger to following vehicles; whether he has received representations from the South Devon advisory committee for licensing motor-omnibuses on this subject; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have received representations on the subject from the South Devon Area Advisory Committee for the licensing of motor omnibuses. Drivers of motor omnibuses, as a class, are certainly not less careful than other drivers of motor vehicles in giving the proper driving signals, and I do not think there is a case for requiring these vehicles to be equipped with special means of indicating the driver's intention to stop.

Major HARVEY: Will not my right hon. and gallant Friend take into consideration the fact that the roads in South Devon are very different from the roads in other parts of the country?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am always willing, within reason, to assist the South Devon authorities in improving their roads.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend not aware that, although the driver may
make the signal that he is going to stop, it is very often not possible, on account of the size of his vehicle, for it to be seen by the driver of the vehicle behind?

Colonel ASHLEY: I will take that into consideration.

MOTOR DRIVERS (TESTS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 51.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any information as to the tests applied in other countries to persons desiring to be possessed of licences to drive motor vehicles; and, if so, whether, in view of the changes in the proposed law in this country, he will cause such information to be circulated?

Colonel ASHLEY: The latest information in my possession was collected during the year 1925, and relates to the practice in certain European countries. As this information is not up to date I feel that its publication might be misleading.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman taking steps to get any further information?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think probably it would be better to wait till we have a clearer view of how this is working.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Even if the information is not up to date, does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not think it would be better to publish it?

Colonel ASHLEY: I will consider that, but I do not want to go to expense in publishing information which is not up to date.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY COMPANIES (PROFITS AND CHARGES).

Mr. WELLOCK: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many electricity distributing companies which enjoy monopoly powers in addition to paying reasonable dividends distribute large reserves in the form of bonus shares; and whether, in view of the high cost of electricity in many areas, he will inquire into the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that certain electricity distributing companies have capitalised their undistributed
profits. As regards the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that it is open to the local authority concerned or the consumers, if they are of opinion that a company's profits are excessive, to apply for a reduction in the maximum charges authorised by the Act or Order relating to the particular undertaking.

Mr. WELLOCK: Seeing that reports have to be sent in by all these companies, have not the Commissioners, under the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, power to deal with them?

Colonel ASHLEY: If a local authority or a certain number of consumers—I think 20—consider that the price they are charged is too high, they can appeal to me to hold an investigation, and I am empowered to deal with it, and no doubt in an appeal of that sort the fact that there had been a bonus distribution of shares would be taken into consideration.

Mr. WELLOCK: Has not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman power to intervene without the intervention, first, of the local authority?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, it must come from the local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH LOYALISTS (PAYMENTS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have circulated a White Paper giving the names of Irish Loyalist claimants and the amount claimed by each claimant as compensation before the next Supplementary Estimate is brought before the House?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Benn) by the Secretary of State for the Dominions on the 28th February.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving, not the names, but the particulars, where the claim exceeds some amount, say, £10,000 or £20,000, of public money?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. I consider that this matter has been definitely
settled by the decision of the House, taken without a Division—not even challenged by a Division—and taken with the full knowledge that this nominal list would not be published.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's own statement in the House a fortnight ago, when he said that the Treasury had no control or oversight over any of the claims, does he not think it is absolutely necessary that the names of claimants for over £1,000 should be communicated to the House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have resigned myself to submit to the decision which was taken with the full knowledge of all the circumstances.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that he has resigned himself absolutely to 283 Irish Loyalists?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (LEASES).

Sir HERBERT NIELD: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in arriving at assessable profits for Income Tax it has been the custom to allow as an expense the cost of renewing leases, the original cost and any premiums having been regarded as a capital expense, and that notice has been issued by the authorities at Somerset House to inspectors of taxes to disallow for the future the cost of renewing leases; and on what grounds has that been done?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. and learned Friend is, I think, under some misapprehension in this matter. It has always been, and still is, the view of the Board of Inland Revenue that these expenses are inadmissible as deductions for Income Tax purposes, being in the nature of capital outlay. The notice in question was issued last October in order to bring the views of the Board of Inland Revenue to the attention of His Majesty's inspectors of taxes with a view to securing uniformity of practice.

Sir H. NIELD: Would the right hon. Gentleman be surprised to know that the question was prompted by one of the principal firms of chartered accountants in the City of London, who know their facts?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is always strongly fortified by facts in any question which he puts in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL PRICES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the advance in the price of petrol owing to price-fixing agreements between the oil combines; and whether he will take the possibility of further increases in prices of petrol into consideration in framing the Budget for next year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. Naturally I shall take all these matters into consideration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the action of this "ring" will affect the right hon. Gentleman's Budget?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Naturally, I cannot give any indication of what the course of the decision which will be taken in regard to the Budget for next year will be, but I may say that there are on the Paper several questions addressed to various Departments—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Not for to-day.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, not for to-day. I think they are mainly for Thursday. The Government will take an opportunity in regard to those questions to make a comprehensive reply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was not the right hon. Gentleman very clearly warned last year when the marketing arrangements—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hore-Belisha!

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very serious effect this rise in price is having on the motor industry?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; I am left in no doubt of that from the columns of the daily newspapers.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: If there is any further reduction of taxa
tion on oil or petrol, will the right hon. Gentleman see that it does not apply to any coming from Russia?

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Is not this the case of a capitalist combine formed by the Russian Soviet Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: The original question refers to the Budget for next year, and I do not see that these supplementary questions have any bearing upon it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I not in order in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he did not receive warning of this last year when the amalgamation took place?

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Budget for next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

LETTER-BOXES (SIZE).

Mr. DAY: 52.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in some provincial districts the letter-box provided by the postal authorities is so small that during week-ends the box becomes so full that letters can be easily extracted; and will he call for a special Report from his Department with a view to replacing these smaller pillar-boxes with those more suitable for the requirements of the districts?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Such complaints are quite infrequent. If the hon. Member will let me know of any places which he has in mind I will have inquiry made.

MISSING REGISTERED LETTERS.

Mr. DAY: 53.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the Metropolitan police authorities were immediately informed on the discovery of the robbery of mail bags which took place on arrival from Manchester at Euston Station on 23rd February; and can he give the House particulars as to the manner in which this robbery took place?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In answer to the first portion of the hon. Member's question I would refer him to
my reply of the 28th of February to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain). It has not been possible to determine how the theft occurred, but the inquiry is still proceeding.

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in many cases these mail bags travel in vans through which people can pass to and fro, and without any protection of any kind? When valuable mail bags are being carried by rail, ought they not to be locked in?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Department is dealing with that point. I said something about it during the Debate yesterday.

TELEGRAPH SERVICE.

Sir JOHN POWER: 54.
asked the Postmaster-General the total loss on the telegraphs, on the basis of the commercial accounts, since they were nationalised; and which was the latest year in which a profit was earned?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Commercial accounts were not prepared before the 1st of April, 1912. It is estimated that during the period 1870 to 1912 the total loss amounted to approximately £21,800,000, of which interest charges account for about £12½ millions. From April, 1912, to April, 1928, the loss amounted to approximately £24 millions, including about £5 millions for interest charges. The latest year in which a surplus was shown was 1871, when, as I have indicated, the accounts were not on a commercial basis.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is it not a fact that the profit on the Post Office since the War is far greater than the loss on the telegraphs in the whole of the period referred to by the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I could not say that without notice.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Sir J. POWER: 56.
asked the Postmaster-General the net profit or loss on the telephones, on the basis of the commercial accounts, since the service was taken over from the National Telephone Company; and the amount paid to the Post Office by the National Telephone
Company by way of royalties during the last three years of the operation of the company?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: From the 1st April, 1912, to the 31st March, 1928 (the nearest convenient dates) the aggregate telephone surplus, after providing for maintenance, depreciation and operating costs, but not interest, amounted to £24,591,445. The interest charges for the same period amounted to £27,059,534. In considering these figures it is necessary to bear in mind that application of the post-War tariff was postponed for a considerable time and also that during the past few years reductions of telephone charges have been made amounting in the aggregate to many millions of pounds. The royalties received from the National Telephone Company during the last three years of its operation amounted to £970,000.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not also the fact that many rural districts have been provided with telephones on a non-commercial basis?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it not also a fact that not enough rural districts have been provided with telephones?

CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE.

Captain GUNSTON: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can give figures showing to what extent the cash-on-delivery system is being used for agricultural produce?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I regret that neither the railway companies nor my Department have any figures to show to what extent the cash-on-delivery system is being used for agricultural produce.

BAIRD TELEVISION SYSTEM (DEMONSTRATION).

Mr. THURTLE: 58.
asked the Postmaster-General why his invitation to witness a demonstration of the Baird television system in the near future is limited to a certain number of hon. Members only; if he will consider extending these invitations to other hon. Members; and if any experts in television, other than those
interested in the Baird system, are to be present at the demonstration?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The demonstration to which the hon. Member refers took place to-day, and was witnessed by a few hon. Members of all parties, in addition to representatives of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Baird Company. It was necessary to restrict the number present to a minimum, because at present the nature of the apparatus makes it impossible for more than a few persons to witness the experiment simultaneously.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Postmaster-General reply to the last part of my question as to whether "any experts in television, other than those interested in the Baird system, are to be present at the demonstration?"

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The only expert present at the Post Office demonstration who comes within that category that I can remember was Professor Fleming.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a widespread impression that the whole system will not stand examination and that there is a great speculation going on in regard to this company on the Stock Exchange; and will he see that his Department does not lend itself to any of these marketing operations?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There are a great many reasons why we should not make any representations on this question, but all relevant facts will be taken into consideration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the demonstration took place this morning on the understanding that on no side should any information be given to the Press?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is so.

MAIL BAGS IN TRANSIT.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 59.
asked the Postmaster-General what precautions are taken to preserve the security of mail bags in transit by rail?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Mail bags are conveyed by railway in charge
either of Post Office or of railway officials. As I stated yesterday, the matter is at present under investigation in my Department.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that anyone may go through the vans and find that nobody is about and that the mail-bags are lying about?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is undoubtedly true. The mails are during that period in charge of the guards of the railway company, but I should prefer to say nothing further on the subject at the moment, because the whole question of the custody of the mails is under consideration at the present moment.

Mr. DAY: Is it not the case that while the mails are in the railway vans sometimes the guards are not there at all, and passengers can pass in and out of the carriages?

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (LAND BANKS).

Mr. GILLETT: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the recommendation of the East Africa Commission that a suitable proportion of the loan money should be spent for development purposes in native areas, and seeing the Kenya Legislative Council are proposing to raise a loan, a part of which, amounting to £200,000, is to be used to start a land bank, he will recommend that the bank should be available both for white settlers and native producers?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The question of establishing a land and agricultural bank in Kenya and the method of financing the bank if established are still under consideration. In publishing the Land and Agricultural Bank Bill for information and guidance, the Government announced that the question of participation by Africans in the benefits of the proposed law would, if supported by African opinion, form the subject of a separate Bill. I understand that it would be necessary to frame different provisions in view of the communal holdings of the natives.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA (NATIVE LANDS).

Mr. GILLETT: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that at a Government sale of farms at Tanganyika in October, 1928, it was announced that 20s. would be given as compensation for the loss of the use of the land for cultivation purposes in the case of each native affected; and whether this is all the compensation given to a native whose land is sold by the Government to non-natives?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have not seen such an announcement and I am not aware of the place to which the hon. Member alludes. No land (other than areas of freehold land alienated by the former German Government) can be sold in Tanganyika, and no non-native can be granted a lease of any land that is in the lawful occupation of a native. I understand, however, that in certain cases where a native has had an isolated rice patch or plot of vegetable cultivation within an otherwise unoccupied area he has been offered the alternative of retaining the patch or of receiving some monetary compensation.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRSHIP R.101.

Mr. GILLETT: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what was the original amount of the contract given, without competition, in January, 1926, for the construction of the airship R.101; how much of this sum has been expended; and how much in excess of the original estimate has already been paid to the contractor or has been promised to him?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The construction of R.101 is being carried out by Government labour and not by contract, and I assume that the hon. Member refers to the contract for the supply of component parts of the framework. This contract, which was placed without competition in view of the fact that only one firm had the particular experience required to enable it to collaborate in work of such highly experimental character, was not for a fixed or comprehensive sum, certain of the elements of the contract price being contingent upon actual costs. The payments due under the contract to date amount to
approximately £176,800. On completion, a position which has now been almost reached, the contractors will become entitled to a further payment of approximately £8,000, together with the repayment of certain direct expenditure, estimated not to exceed £4,000.

Mr. GILLETT: If there was no definite sum arranged with the directors, how was it that £14,000 was afterwards paid on account of the delay on the part of the Government fulfilling certain parts of this transaction which ought to have been carried out?

Sir P. SASSOON: There was no fixed over-all sum.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY EMPLOYES (DOCKYARDS ABROAD).

Mr. KELLY: 68.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of Admiralty employés who are engaged in dockyards abroad having gone out from this country under agreement with the Admiralty?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The total number of employés serving under agreement at dockyards and other Admiralty establishments abroad who have been sent from home establishments is 736.

Mr. KELLY: Is there any maximum period under this agreement for service abroad?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL DISARMAMENT.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the invitation given by the United States of America Government to submit further proposals on outstanding naval difficulties, as indicated in their last official despatches on this question, and of the fact that His Majesty's Government has been giving this last note their careful consideration, whether he can now make any statement to the House?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply returned on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 20th of February last.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

INSTITUTIONS (COCAINE).

Mr. DAY: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any complaints of large amounts of cocaine that have been used in any of the Poor Law institutions in England and Wales; whether he will give the House particulars; and is it his intention to set up an inquiry into these charges?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend has received no formal complaint of this kind, but he is aware of one instance in which a Poor Law medical officer has used considerable quantities of this drug for his own treatment. The officer has resigned his appointment and my right hon. Friend sees no reason for further action on his part.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the amount of cocaine used by this medical officer?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, it was a very unhappy case, and I do not think it is desirable to go further into the matter.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that in one case £2,000 worth of this drug was used at an institution in one year?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, there is no justification for any anxiety on that account.

CASUALS, LAMBETH.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received representations from the Lambeth board of guardians in regard to the sending to the hospital of surplus casuals from the casual ward; and what action, if any, he has taken?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. My Department is, in conjunction with the other
authorities affected, considering the action to be taken on these representations.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many times this hopital has been used for this purpose?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BRITISH MIGRANTS).

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to render British migrants entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
Of late I have been employing the ample leisure between Divisions in this House by stealing off into the Library and reading some of the so-called histories of the world. I have galloped through Gibbon, and have even waded through H. G. Wells; and I find that, of all the theories that provoke historians, the one that disturbs them most is the decline and fall of nations. Each and every one of them expends much time, and move ink in unfolding the causes of collapse of the lost empires of the world. Some of these causes, which are gone into at great length, need not be detailed here. But there is one symptom of decline which is common to every diagnosis, and which seems to be the chronic forerunner of imperial dissolution. In every case these historians admit the presence of an ominous excess of population, which cannot be absorbed and has to be maintained in charitable idleness by the State.
It would be insulting to ask whether that symptom is present in our community to-day. Opening the newspaper this morning, I discovered that over a million and a quarter people are still workless in these Islands. Some of them have been out of work since the War. Some of them are the best material we possess. People speak of them as being shirkers and thriftless, but the truth is that some of them are the finest elements in the country. They went over the top in the Great War, and they were heroes then. They did splendidly on many a front. They realised the high level of living in those days, and they came back to this country under the
promise here of an endless El Dorado; but they were crushed instead into sunless slums, and have been forced to partake of the crumbs which fall from civilisation's table. Is it to be wondered at that some of them have become what the world calls shirkers? Men who were independent freemen originally, have become inevitably shameless devourers of the dole, and, in the enervating atmosphere of subsidised sloth, sometimes the noblest heroisms have melted away. For the pittance which is drawn by these cheated citizens is not valid for any State purpose. What is the use of it? It does not keep the person who gets it in a proper condition; it produces no extra employment; it creates no wealth; it cures no malady; from start to finish it is waste, waste, waste. It simply perpetuates chaos, and it does one thing which is even sadder and more tragic than anything else—it blinds millions to the bankruptcy of conditions here, and to the illimitable solvency of conditions overseas.
For while this country is congested, the Empire is empty. We need not argue about it. We are always being told that Australia is as big as Europe without Russia, and it is a strange fact that, if to-day we could hook on to Australia and tow her into the Atlantic alongside this country, so vast is she that we could walk across to the United States dry-shod; and yet the population of that great Continent numbers 6,000,000 people at the most. New Zealand, again, has barely 1,000,000. What about Canada? Professor Seeley, the great Imperial exponent 50 years ago, told us this, that in ten years from that date Canada would have a population of over 12,000,000. Her population to-day is under 10,000,000.
While the Mother Country is a tangle of towns glutted with human beings, the bulk of the Dominions remain vast, void tracts. While England is to-day semi-suburban, five-sixths of the Empire has never felt the foot of man. Empty continents gape to be filled, the rich earth cries out "till me"; the rivers call aloud "navigate us"; the woods wait for the axe. But where are the hands to glean in these fields? They have fallen feeble in ten years of torpor over here, and the sad thing is that there is no magician with a wand which he can wave to effect the mighty exchange. I
am aware that in 1921 there was an Imperial Conference, and it was followed by a grant by the Government of £3,000,000 a year in order to assist migration. We all know that the results of that grant were lamentable and the expenditure under it has been pitiful. We know that not only has the £3,000,000 a year never been reached, but that in certain years not even £35,000 was reached to assist emigration.
Our Governments have all along blamed the co-operation of the Dominions, which has not been up to the mark. But the truth is that a mediocrity of outlook has all along doomed overseas settlement to disrepute and failure. The question is this. Why has no more money been spent? Is it the fault of the Dominions? Is not the truth really nearer at home? Does it not lie in this simple fact, that in eight years we have spent over £400,000,000 on unemployment? Every week we are spending £1,000,000 on the unemployed. It costs, I think, 17s. 9d. a week to demoralise a Briton. This money is paid out and what is the object of it? It finds no work. It creates no wealth. But it does one thing. It keeps the recipient here. And so you have this incredible anomaly. Governments with one hand dealing out money to invite the unemployed to pack up and go, and with the other hand bribing them to stop.
It would be cowardly merely to criticise and not offer an alternative, and I therefore will describe the essence of the Bill which I and those with me are introducing. In effect it amounts to this. Instead of merely continuing unemployed pay in a country of vanished markets, it is suggested that the workless who migrate overseas within the British Empire, should receive up to two years' unemployment pay. It is further suggested that a wide scheme for training would be migrants should be launched, and that farmers and other employers of labour should be approached and invited to take selected migrants and educate them. These employers would receive the unemployment pay of the migrants towards the payment of the full local wage to these trainees. To-day it costs £50 per unemployed person yearly. It will cost in six or eight years another £400,000,000 to £500,000,000. We may be saving per person perhaps £200 if he
emigrates. And the benefit is two-fold: it encourages the workless to leave empty markets, and it makes them welcome overseas.
This in outline is the Bill. It is a sad fact that in this matter we have forgotten the British Empire. I wonder, if Germany had won the War, whether she would have forgotten? She went to War, after all, to get our place in the sun. If she had been victorious, she would have poured out her citizens into the uttermost parts of those realms. To-day Italy is without a dominion into which to send her surplus population. What would Japan give for a continent into which the leaking reservoir of her teeming population could overflow? Unemployment is a scourge under which none of us can sit idle. It is an Imperial issue. I hope that it will never be made the football of faction.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I should not have risen to oppose the Bill but for the speech which we have just heard. I am absolutely tired of hearing this talk about the demoralisation of the dole. I am prepared to admit that there is something in the statement that the subsidising of idleness is demoralising, but it is a remarkable fact that that demoralisation is only discovered when it is the working class. There are plenty of idle people in this country who do not belong to the working-class, and never intend to belong to the working-class, and will never intend, either, to migrate to the Colonies. So long as they can find plenty of opportunity of living in idleness in this country, they will leave the sparsely populated Colonies to look after themselves. It is only our workers who have to go over, although they fought for this country.
I am not prepared to admit that this nation is as overcrowded as the hon. and gallant Member suggests. It is relatively overcrowded, it is true, but when the hon. and gallant Member tells us that we have to encourage farmers to get hold of the best blood and stock of this country and to train them for the cultivation of land overseas, the thing that occurs to me, and to many on these benches, is that we want our best blood and stock in this country, and that there are millions of acres of land in this country which are not cultivated at
all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] The figures are beyond dispute. In every part of the country there is land that is idle and, compared with the year I was born, just over 50 years ago, there are very nearly 3,000,000 people fewer directly or indirectly engaged in the business of agriculture. These facts are significant enough as to the way in which agriculture has been depleted and ruined by the policy of successive Governments.
4.0 p.m.
Something ought to be done to cultivate that part of the British Empire which lies at home. We are as much a part of the British Empire as the Colonies are, and it is a dangerous thing for any country to have to depend upon foreign sources for its food supplies and upon the exploitation of mineral resources and foreign trade as completely as we have to. From one point of view, the more you depend upon your foreign exports, the more are your standards of life governed by the lowest denominator of foreign conditions, and surely there is a great deal to be said for spending money at home in again making this country what she was in years past, a premier agricultural country. This country, after all, is the only country in the world which has not a prosperous agriculture as its basis. Even those countries which commercially are successful against us in foreign markets, have their agriculture to depend upon as a basis, and the country which allows its agricultural basis to slip from it is always a country which is upon the slippery slope to economic ruin. That is the position which the Socialist party have taken up for a good many years—that we ought to make the best of our own country and the best of our own people. When I hear hon. Members, such as the one who has asked leave to introduce this Measure, talking so glibly about sending our best men abroad to cultivate the land there, I feel that it is about time to protest, not that I am so much opposed to the idea, which is a very minor one, expressed in the Bill itself, but that it is based upon a wrong assumption, namely, the idea that it is economically good and sound for a country to lose its agriculture. It is our business as a nation to see that we do all we can to utilise our own resources, our own stock and our own blood, and then,
if we have anything to spare from them, by all means develop our Empire. For that reason, I take the opportunity of opposing the Bill, although I do not intend to vote against it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Commander Oliver Locker-Lampson, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Viscount Sandon, and Sir Newton Moore.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BRITISH MIGRANTS) BILL,

"to render British migrants entitled to unemployment insurance benefits," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SUPERANNUATION.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914.
This Bill seeks to remedy a great injustice to those who are in the Civil Service of this country. It is thought by the great bulk of the people of this country that every civil servant is entitled to superannuation when he has finished his service. That is so, as far as a great number of them are concerned, when they remain in this country, but should the Government ask them to render service in the Colonies, the Dominions, or any of the mandated territories, then we find that these employés of the Government are penalised by the loss of the period of years which they may happen to serve in other parts of the world. Cases have arisen where men just after the Armistice were sent out by the Food Control Department of that time to the Continent of Europe, and they were compelled either to lose the period that they were away from this country in the service of the Government in counting towards superannuation, or they had to pay an amount of money equal to 12½ per cent. of their wages. Again, we had the instance of the men who were sent out by the Admiralty to the Australian dockyards, and the whole period they were away, some five years, was taken off the period of years counted for superannuation. It is to remedy that,
that I am asking leave to introduce this Measure, so that, in the event of a civil servant being transferred, probably temporarily, to the service of a Dominion Government, a Crown Colony, or any territory in respect of which a mandate is being exercised by the Government, that period shall count for the purpose of superannuation.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. Member to move that leave be given to bring in this Bill. Inasmuch as it provides for larger pensions than those to which those affected are entitled under the existing law, or provides pensions for those who otherwise would not get them, it would be a charge on the Revenue.

Mr. KELLY: I am quite willing that this may be examined, though the Bill I am putting forward would not give a larger pension. It would enable civil servants to count the period so as to give them the pension which they believed they would have, and which they were promised when they entered the service of His Majesty's Government. It would not give them a larger pension.

Mr. SPEAKER: The only effect of the Bill would be that any civil servant who was employed overseas would be entitled to a pension to which he would not be entitled now for the period so served.

Mr. TOWNEND: The point is that if a member of the Civil Service were to be called upon at any time during his service under the Government to leave this country for a period of five years, those five years should rank for superannuation when the superannuation age was reached. For instance, a person who now enters the service at the age of 15, at the end of 45 years, that is, on reaching the age of 60, is entitled to a pension. If, however, he had to go abroad at the instance of the Government, say between the ages of 30 and 40, those 10 years would not rank for superannuation. He would not, therefore, receive the maximum of his pension, to which ordinarily he would be entitled at 60, until he had made up those 10 years spent abroad, which would make him 70.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is exactly what I said. The man would be entitled to a larger pension than that to which he would otherwise be entitled. I am afraid I cannot allow the Bill to proceed further.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is it not a fact that the Bill just introduced and read the First time would impose a very large charge upon the Exchequer?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, the effect of the Bill which the hon. and gallant Member, by leave of the House, has brought in, would affect the Insurance Fund. It would not be a direct charge upon the State.

Mr. KELLY: I submit that this Bill would not affect the State in the sense that if a man had not been sent to render service in the Colonies, and had remained at home, the whole of that time would have ranked for pension, and the fact that he is rendering service in another part of the world than in his dockyard or the War Department, certainly is not putting a greater charge upon the Exchequer than was expected when the men entered the Service.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is the question of the exact operation of the Bill if it became an Act of Parliament. Probably he would be entitled to a larger pension if the Bill passed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand that the objection to my hon. Friend bringing in this Bill is that it might entail an extra charge upon the Exchequer. May I point to a recent precedent, namely, the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) to provide boots for necessitous school children. I believe your ruling was that it could not be proceeded with further than the Second Reading, for example, unless a Financial Resolution were passed, and that that was the Government's affair. May I put it to you that if this Bill passes the First Reading now, the Government could then be approached to see if a Financial Resolution could be moved, and that that would safeguard the Exchequer?

Mr. SPEAKER: I could not allow a private Member to bring in a Bill which increases the charge on the Exchequer.

Mr. THURTLE: On that point of Order. May I submit to you an analogy of last year, when a Bill was passed conferring on teachers who served abroad the same rights which this Bill seeks to establish for civil servants, and on that occasion there was no Money Resolution?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot be called upon at the moment to deal with the question to which the hon. Member refers. I have now to deal with the Bill before the House, and I could not accept a Bill which would have the effect to which I have referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) ACT (1921) AMENDMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Tuesday next read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL.

Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Doncaster Area Drainage Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHAIRMAN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Ellis Davies to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Savings Banks Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — PONTYPRIDD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended, considered.

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions for increase of town, councillors in large burghs.)

(1) The provisions of the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, with regard to the alteration of the number of magistrates and councillors in burghs and to the number of councillors in each ward, and to the division or redivision into wards shall cease to have effect as regards any large burgh, and it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State on the representation of the town council of any large burgh by order to determine of alter the number of councillors and magistrates of the burgh, the number and boundaries of the wards into which the burgh is divided, and the number of councillors to be elected for each ward, and where under any such order the number of councillors for any ward is a number other than three or a multiple of three the order shall make such modification of the provisions of the said Act of 1900 with regard to the retirement of councillors as may be necessary to make these provisions conform to the order.

(2) A reference in the foregoing Subsection to any provision in the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, shall be deemed to include a reference to any corresponding provision in a local Act.

(3) The number of councillors and magistrates to be elected in each large burgh and the number and boundaries of wards into which any such burgh is divided shall, unless and until determined or altered under the foregoing provisions of this Section, remain the same as under the law existing at the passing of the Act.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is introduced in response to certain representations that were made, particularly by the City of Aberdeen and Falkirk, though the Clause has also the approval of such burghs as the City of Dundee. It is clear that by the imposition of fresh duties upon some of these bodies it may be desirable to have machinery to increase the number of representatives. Under the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, there are
certain restrictions which we propose under this Clause to remove, in order to meet, for instance, the particular case of the City of Aberdeen. Recently, under a private Act, there was a re-allocation of the areas within the city, and, following upon representations from the City of Aberdeen, it might be more suitable, for instance, merely to add one representative to the existing districts, making it four for each district instead of three, or a multiple of three. We are merely applying the county council procedure to these circumstances.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I should like, first of all, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves on his return to the House, and to thank him very heartily, on behalf of the City of Aberdeen, for this Clause.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I would like to say, in a word, that the City Council of Dundee very much prefer the wording which the right hon. Gentleman has used to the wording which was proposed before.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to express my satisfaction at the response which has been made to the proposals of Aberdeen, and I am glad that it is possible to accept the proposals of the Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE—(Provision as to alteration of register of electors when electoral divisions or wards are altered.)

Where any Order made under this Act determining or altering the boundaries of electoral divisions in a county or of wards in a burgh, or dividing a burgh into wards or where a scheme providing for the election of district councillors for wards of electoral divisions involves an alteration of the area of any registration unit within the meaning of the Representation of the People Acts the Secretary of State may by Order make such provision as may be necessary with regard the register of electors to be used at any election of county, town, or district councillors for any electoral division or ward affected by such alteration in the area of the registration unit.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is really consequential upon the new Clause which has just been added to the Bill. It is clear that the register on which the elections will take place will be already made up, and it will be necessary, in view of the alteration to some of these districts, that powers should be given for altering the registers upon which those elections will take place.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amalgamation or extension of burghs.)

In the event of the town council of any burgh, either before the passing of this Act or within twelve months from the passing of this Act, making application for a Provisional Order to extend the boundaries of their burgh, nothing in this Act contained shall affect or prejudice or be deemed to affect or prejudice any such application, and in the event of any such Provisional Order being passed into law and the population of such extended burgh at the date of the passing of the Act confirming the said Provisional Order being twenty thousand or upwards, such extended burgh shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a large burgh and be deemed to have existed at the time at which the Census of nineteen hundred and twenty-one was taken, and to have had a population within the police boundaries of such extended burgh according to that Census of twenty thousand or upwards.

For the purposes of this Section the expression "a Provisional Order to extend the boundaries of their burgh" shall be deemed to include a Provisional Order to amalgamate with any adjoining burgh or other area.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Later on in our proceedings, I hope to move an Amendment to this Bill of a somewhat wider character than the Clause which I am now moving. This Clause is limited in its scope and I think its object will be obvious to every Member of the House. In spite of the general provisions of this Bill, adjoining burghs with common services and common interests will find it desirable and, I hope, easy and possible, in the future to amalgamate their various services. Normal burgh development means extension of burgh boundaries, and we may expect that extensions, amalgamations, and absorptions will take place in the
future as has been the case in the past. When those amalgamations take place in the natural order of things, we shall have under this Bill, unless it is amended, the anomaly of an extended burgh with a population approaching perhaps 40,000 being placed in the category of a small burgh and included in the county council administration, and denied the status of a burgh in regard to its burgh services and interests. It will be regarded in a worse position than a burgh with a population of, say 20,500. That I am sure is an anomaly which no Member of this House would seek to defend.
I admit that the are not many cases in Scotland that would come within the scope of this Clause, but I have in mind a typical case of the burgh of Buckhaven and Methil in Fifeshire with a population of between 18,000 and 19,000. The ratepayers in that burgh are now, as they have been ever since this Bill was promoted, unanimously opposed to absorption into the county administration. I am sure that no Member of this House would dare to argue that, either in regard to county services or burgh services, this Bill will effect any improvement whatever in the existing situation. Here we have a burgh which has been efficiently and economically administered in the past. It has extended its services. It has, as a matter of fact, during the last four or five years incurred an expenditure on housing and on roads within its boundaries of about £500,000. It has the most efficient municipal services in the matter of health administration of any burgh in the county of Fife, and yet this burgh, placed as it is almost on the brink of qualification as a large burgh, is thrown into the general county administration and deprived of that direct control over its municipal services to which it is entitled and which the ratepayers in the burgh are anxious to retain. The present Bill will not come into operation before May, 1930. I cannot see that the administration of the county of Fife will be at all affected by the exclusion of a burgh such I have mentioned from county administration. I am perfectly certain that the burgh administration will not be improved in any sense whatever by being included in the county administration. All that I am pleading for is that burghs so placed shall have time to look round, adjust
their affairs and their prospective relations with the county authorities, and that we shall leave the door open for the next 12 months for this purpose.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I beg to second the Motion.
I think we are all agreed that, where there is a possibility of a few adjoining communities coming together and co-ordinating their various functions and making one unit which will be more efficient, it is desirable to encourage that possibility. We know that when any of these amalgamations are spoken about or suggested that there are always difficulties and objections, and a great deal of energy and effort has often to be expended to secure a very desirable end. As a set-off against that, if the combined unit, the new unit, is to have an opportunity as a large burgh of carrying through its own self government, there will be a greater inducement for these amalgamations to take place. In the same way, when a burgh is considering the extension of its boundary, which would involve new responsibilities and a considerable addition to the local burdens but which might be a very desirable thing from the public point of view, it will be an inducement for it to do so if it has the advantage of status which this new Clause would give. As my hon. Friend has said, this is rather apart from the other question, which we have not yet had an opportunity of discussing properly, as to the limits of a large burgh. I hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing that later on. Whether we leave the figure as it is now or not, at any rate, it should not be determined finally by the Bill that the status of the burghs of Scotland are to remain as they are at the passing of the Measure. One of the things for which the Bill has been commended and for which the Minister has pleaded, more than once, is elasticity. I suggest that if we stereotype the position as it is now, we shall not have the elasticity which is so desirable. I quite understand that the financial adjustments with the county council would be one of the difficulties, but this is a difficulty which it is not impossible to surmount in any particular case. The object of the new Clause is a desirable one, and I trust that the Government will see their way to accept it.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman in favour of this new Clause may seem at first sight, perhaps, to have a certain amount of force, but I think that on investigation the House will realise that the Clause would produce a very difficult position. Indeed, the position, if this Clause as it stands were passed, would be seriously prejudiced for the whole future of the new authorities—the new county councils of combined county and burgh authorities which it is the object of the Bill to set up. I note, in the first place, that it would be almost impossible for this provision only to operate in one way. It has been suggested by the two hon. Members that elasticity is desired, but I am sure that both of them would agree that what they probably have in mind is only elasticity in one direction. What about the case where the population of a burgh happens to fall under 20,000? It would obviously be most injudicious to advance a line of argument which might mean, for instance, that a town, because of a fall in population by some 200, might lapse from the position it held at present, and find itself merged in a county authority.
It is desirable that we should determine the position of the burghs and the county authorities in Scotland and lay it down with a certain degree of definiteness. The financial adjustments necessary would be far-reaching and extensive. The proposal that for 12 months after the passing of this Act it should still be possible for a burgh to apply for a Provisional Order might easily mean that the Provisional Order would be made or refused late in 1930. Now the new grants are payable in two monthly instalments as early as 16th May of that year. It is quite right that a certain amount of margin should be given, and, indeed, a certain amount of margin is provided in the Bill. If any amalgamation takes place during the passage of the Bill through this House or through another place, it would still be possible to add the name of another burgh to the Schedule and make it clear that it was not to come within the scope of the new county authority. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause will see that the Bill provides an extension of time up to one month after the passing of the Act,
and that the object he has in view may thus be secured. Twelve months is altogether an unreasonable extension of time.
In the first place, the number of units to which this proposal applies are very small indeed. In fact, in one of the cases brought forward it has been proved that the time given is quite adequate, because Dumfries and Maxwelltown have already taken the necessary steps, and they will no doubt find it possible to bring themselves within the ambit of this Bill. Another case which is germane to this question is the case of Musselburgh. Certainly, when Musselburgh desires to unite with the adjacent city of Edinburgh it will have no difficulty. The combination of the two will certainly bring Musselburgh outside the scope of the Bill. That brings me down to the single example of Buckhaven and Methil. The hon. Member said that Buckhaven and Methil had about 18,000 inhabitants, and is on the verge of carrying through some amalgamation which will enable it to have a greater population than 20,000. I am informed that a plebiscite has been taken in the other burgh with which it is proposed the amalgamation should take place. With all the advantages of the proposal in its mind and the proposals of this Bill clearly in view, the other burgh voted almost unanimously against the proposed amalgamation. Only 126 of the electorate were found to register their votes in favour of it.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: Only about 16 per cent. of the ratepayers voted. The whole arrangements for the plebiscite were so inadequate that we cannot take that result as at all convincing.

Major ELLIOT: Seven hundred electors found it sufficiently adequate to vote against the proposal, and only 126 found it sufficiently adequate to vote in favour of it. The onus rests upon those desiring the change rather than upon those opposing the change. It would be impossible to allow the whole arrangements of all the new authorities to be held up for the next vital 12 months, while possible amalgamations were being discussed and re-discussed or voted upon and possibly re-voted upon under the proposals made by the hon. Member. He said that no Member of this House could contemplate the possibility that a unit of well over
20,000 might be within the county for major purposes, while units of barely 20,000 were outside. The hon. Member was speaking without his book. More than one hon. Member of this House has examined precisely that possibility, and more than one hon. Member of his own party has examined that possibility. My predecessor in office, the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart), who has as great a claim to knowledge of local government as any hon. Member sitting on these benches, has specifically examined this proposal and has specifically reported to the Board of Health upon it. This is what he said in the report which he signed:
We encountered much difficulty in considering what burghs are capable of being independent units in health administration. The population limit is, admittedly, not always the true criterion of what should be an ideal unit, but it is the best that can be suggested. We have come to the conclusion that only those burghs with a population of 50,000 and over are in a position to administer the services that will be brought under the control of the unified health authorities.
The hon. Member for St. Rollox went further. He and the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) considered even a unit which transcended that population limit. They decided that it should not by any means be automatic that a unit which transcended even the limit of 50,000 should not thereby automatically pass from the category of a small burgh to that of a large burgh. They said:
A burgh which was included in a county unit and whose population subsequently increased beyond the 50,000 limit should not thereby become automatically an independent unit.
Their final recommendation was that:
A burgh of over 50,000 population may be required by the Department to be included in a county unit, and burghs which, once having been included, have a population of over 50,000 should become independent units only with the sanction of the Department, granted after full inquiry into all the circumstances.
Therefore, the very emergency which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy) mentions has been examined and scrutinised carefully by an authoritative committee, which has reported in a sense adverse to that which he desires to convince the House this afternoon. That report was signed by two of the most representative members of his own
party. In view of all these circumstances, I hope that the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press his new Clause.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I hope that the Under-Secretary will pay as much attention to the reports signed by the Noble Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Duchess of Atholl), in so far as she deals with Scottish local government, as he has asked us to pay to reports signed by my two hon. Friends, whose remarkable report he is continually quoting. There is not very much in the particular point raised by the new Clause, which simply asks that for a period of 12 months local authorities may combine to get outside county council control. Could we have any indication from the Under-Secretary or from the Secretary of State for Scotland that they are prepared to consider favourably the Amendment on page 804 dealing with the same point, but not specifically limited to twelve months. In page 2, line 19, at the end to insert the words:
Provided also that where a burgh is not a large burgh at the commencement of this Act but becomes a large burgh at any time thereafter by reason of an increase in population, such burgh shall, on application being made to the Secretary of State and with his approval, be deemed to be a large burgh for the purposes of this Act.
We ask in that Amendment that provision shall be made for application to the Secretary of State and that in future local authorities which become large burghs, shall not be debarred from the privileges granted to large burghs. If we could have an indication that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to consider favourably something on those lines, there would be very little point in our pressing for a precise period of 12 months; but if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept some such Amendment, may I draw his attention to the strange anomalies which will arise in Scotland? We shall have in many counties in Scotland large burghs of, perhaps, 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 thousand inhabitants, which will come under the control of the county council, while in neighbouring counties there will be burghs whose population has shrunk maybe to 18,000 or 16,000, who will retain an independent existence. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make provision for some kind of elasticity in
this respect, and unless he is prepared to say that he will retain powers under the provisions of the Act whereby small burghs on attaining the population limit of 20,000 shall have the privileges which have been granted to the other burghs of 20,000, he will land himself and his Measure in additional anomalies and more troubles than all the huge mountains of them which surround the Bill at the present time.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I find myself, strongly against my will, giving some little sympathy to the new Clause. We in Scotland, in spite of the present political representation, are strongly Conservative by instinct, and there is some difficulty in removing ourselves from historical associations. I am now referring to the question of amalgamations. It will take some time for certain burghs to break away from the individuality which the old tradition inspires, and I do think that the 12 months period which has been suggested might well be granted to burghs which are at present nibbling at the idea of amalgamation. It will take some time to swallow the whole bite. In that time they might forget the historical associations of their particular burgh and, in the interests of the general community, come together and make a success of their combines and remove themselves from the scope of this part of the Bill.
Take the case of a burgh which wishes to extend, and will be forced to extend, its boundaries. I have in my mind the Burgh of Troon. Many hon. Members of this House and many people outside will remember the Burgh of Troon. They have probably gained health and fresh stimulus from the Troon golf course, and they will have got many new ideas about politics and other things from its invigorating sea breezes. In addition to these advantages, Troon has benefited owing to the beneficence of one of its old inhabitants, who has provided for the building of a large college, the Marr Institute. Mr. Marr left the money with the idea of giving the children of Troon and the future children of Troon a cheap, if not an entirely free, education, which would take them right up to the University stage, with bursarships and so on to enable them to complete their education. The result is that this large institute is
being built just outside Troon, and already many families from various parts of Scotland are being allured to Troon. That means building developments in Troon, and growth of population. It may well mean that before the expiration of 12 months, Troon will have come within the scope of the 20,000 population limit, or soon after the 12 months. It all depends upon the publicity which is given to the offer of cheap education at Troon. For these reasons, and speaking personally as the representative of my own constituency, I feel that there is much to be said for the extension of the period during which amalgamations or extensions may take place.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: I beg to support the new Clause, and I hope that the Government will listen to the views of one of their own followers. If other hon. Members on the Government side took part in the Debate they would say pretty much what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore). As the Bill stands at the moment, the Government are not allowing sufficient time for the feeling against the Bill, which has arisen within the burghs, to die down. I do not need to remind the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate or the Under-Secretary of the hostility which has been shown by the burghs of Scotland against the whole Measure.

Commander COCHRANE: Not by Leven.

Mr. WATSON: I am afraid that the result of the plebiscite is not the opinion of Leven. I believe that if the position could be clearly explained to Leven, that district would be willing to consider amalgamation with the Burgh of Buckhaven, rather than be absorbed in the county scheme. There has been so much hostility created within the burghs in Scotland that it will take some little time before they begin to settle down. If the Government will agree to the new Clause, and give them 12 months to make up their minds whether they are going to extend their boundaries and come within the scope of a large burgh, or to amalgamate burghs, the position would be more satisfactory. There are burghs where an amalgamation could take place satisfactorily, and where if the burghs had a little time in which to consider
the matter they would probably be willing to carry on their existence in a large burgh, rather than be absorbed in a county scheme. I suggest to the Secretary of State that he might give more favourable consideration to the proposal that 12 months should be given to those burghs to make up their minds whether or not they will come within the scope of large burghs.
Supposing financial adjustments require to be made and supposing that grants are given to the small burghs and the landward areas of counties before amalgamations take place. There is nothing new in financial adjustments having to take place between a county council and a burgh authority. That has been going on continuously under previous Acts of Parliament. Burghs are always asking for additional territory and they are always opposed by the county council. Whenever a burgh wishes to extend its boundaries it is opposed by a county council, either for good or bad reasons. A county council, naturally, does not wish to lose any rating area, and it opposes such applications. We have had these adjustments in past years, and there is no reason why we cannot adjust all the financial difficulties that are likely to arise if the right hon. Gentleman concedes the claim that an additional 12 months should be allowed to these burghs to make up their minds whether they are going into the county scheme or whether they wish for amalgamation in order to become large burghs within the meaning of the Bill.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause—(Increase of house-owners' rates)—standing in the name of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is not in order, as it is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. STEPHEN: May I point out that Clause 20 of the Bill does practically the same thing. This Amendment will only take from property owners a certain amount of the rating relief which they already get under the 1920 Act.

Mr. SPEAKER: This particular new Clause is to amend the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Restrictions Act, 1920, and we cannot amend that Act under this Bill.

Mr. STEPHEN: We passed an Amendment during the Committee stage to amend the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, and I submit that if it was in order for such an Amendment to be passed during the Committee stage it should be in order for this new Clause to be considered now.

Mr. SPEAKER: The proposed new Clause is not covered by the Title of the Bill.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I draw your attention to Clause 20 of the Bill which provides for certain Amendments to the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911. Having regard to the Amendments which have been accepted relating to that Act, surely this proposal is now in order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think this Bill has anything to do with the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Restrictions Act, 1920.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I put this point. What we cannot quite follow is while the Government are allowed to amend the 1911 Act and we are not allowed to amend the 1920 Act. Both deal with the question of rates; the same issue is raised. We are not asking for any alteration in rents. We only seek to alter rates, and we cannot quite follow why there should be this differentiation and that we are unable to move an Amendment to the 1920 Act while the Government are able to alter the 1911 Act. That is what we cannot quite understand. We are not asking for any alteration in rents, but only an alteration in the matter of rating, and, having granted the Government the right to alter the 1911 Act, we cannot quite see why we should not be granted the same privilege in regard to the 1920 Act.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): The question which arose under under the 1920 Act was one of rents, not of rates. This suggested new Clause would take away the right and power of landlords to increase rents in order to recoup themselves in respect of a rise in rates. That is purely a question of rent. Clause 20 of the Bill deals with the commission on the collection of rates for local authorities. That is quite a different matter, and comes under the Title of the Bill. It is the amount of
the commission which a local authority has to pay to landlords for collecting occupiers' rates. That is purely a question of the collection of rates.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Lord Advocate has not stated the position quite accurately. The Act of 1920 did not deal with rent at all. It is definite and specific, and it allows 40 per cent., with 7½ per cent. extra, for an increase of rates in rent; and it has never been held to be rent. We say that we should be allowed to alter the relationship of rates in rent.

Mr. STEPHEN: This new Clause suggests the deletion of a Sub-section in the Act of 1920 which allows owners' rates over a certain period to be transferred from the owner to the tenant. That is the purpose of the Sub-section in the 1920 Act, and we propose that the rates which the owner is allowed to transfer to the tenant should be re-imposed on the owner in view of the general alteration of the rating system under this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not convinced that this new Clause comes within the scope of the Bill. It relates to rent. I do not know whether this point was raised during the Committee stage or not.

Mr. STEPHEN: May I point out to yon that owing to the fact that we were discussing the Bill under the Guillotine Motion we were not able to consider this particular Clause, and we did not get any ruling from the Chairman during the Committee stage.

Mr. SPEAKER: In my opinion this new Clause does not come within the scope of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Secretary of State to raise status of burghs.)

The Secretary of State may by Order raise to the status of a large burgh any burgh which during the summer months of every year has habitually a population in excess of the population which determines the status of a large burgh.—[Mr. Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
If I may give an illustration I would choose Rothesay, which at the last census had a population of over 15,000. The census took place at a period of the year when the population of Rothesay is not at its maximum.

Major ELLIOT: May I point out that owing to the industrial dispute that census was taken in the summer at a period when the Rothesay population is at its maximum.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It was taken in June, and the population of Rothesay is not at its maximum until about the third week in July. My information is that Rothesay has a winter population of over 15,000 and that her summer population is over 40,000. Rothesay is an up-to-date place, providing all the sanitary appliances which many large cities supply; goes in for child welfare and the provision of hospitals, and has a great and developing population. Surely this is a case where the right hon. Gentleman might import into the Bill some elasticity which would enable Rothesay, and places like Rothesay, to perform their functions in a democratic way. As things are now Rothesay is to be tied up with Arran. There is no communication between Rothesay and Arran; there is no community of interests between Rothesay and Arran; the business interests of Rothesay are entirely apart from the business interest of the Isle of Arran, and no one has yet shown what benefits can possibly accrue to Rothesay by being joined with the Island of Arran. All we are asking in this new Clause is that places like Rothesay and Oban, which in the summer months house a population greatly in excess of the population of other large burghs in Scotland, could be raised to the status of a large burgh by an Order of the Secretary of State.
Hon. Members below the Gangway have put down an Amendment to this new Clause which would make it compulsory on the Secretary of State to raise them to the status of a large burgh. They propose that the word "may" shall be left out and the word "shall" inserted instead. I do not think there is much in it. Secretaries of State come and go and, if the present Secretary of State would not raise Rothesay and Oban to the status of a large burgh, it may be that another Secretary of State would do
so, but I am perfectly certain that any Secretary of State if he had the power would, after a careful examination of the circumstances which obtain in Rothesay and Oban, have no hesitation in saying that they are cases where be ought to exercise his discretion and raise them to the status of a large burgh.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: I beg to second the Motion.

5.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I only speak on this Clause because some of my hon. Friends on this side and myself have a similar Clause further down the Order Paper. I am in a somewhat peculiar position. I have in my constituency five small burghs on the sea coast. They enjoy wonderfully salubrious air, and they attract large numbers of summer visitors. In addition, they provide something like 17 or 19 golf courses, including the Meccas of Troon and Prestwick, and therefore the sporting element of the towns makes for annual, if not more regular visits to my constituency. Then, again, as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, no doubt know and as many other literary Members know, I have the privilege of representing half of the Burns country, where those who yield to Burns as the national poet and the voice of Scotland speaking in the wilderness and who yield to him as the supreme singer for all time come from America and from all pares of our own Empire in increasing numbers by their thousands and their tens of thousands.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask if this is a foreword to a tourist guide?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: That question needs no reply from me. I am merely trying to give the views of my constituency, and I want to show why these views should perhaps gain some little attention and weight from the Government. In addition to those attractions which I have tried very inadequately to point out, we have also in these burghs civic authorities of tremendous imagination and enthusiasm. They are men who realise what history has handed down to them, and, from a civic administration point of view, they try to equip them in a worthy manner. The consequence is that every summer from May to October—practically six months—we in Ardrossan, Prestwick, Troon, Salt-coats, and so on have a summer
population varying from 30,000 to 40,000 a year while the winter population varies from 9,000 to 14,000 or 15,000. The point I want to make is that here we have a Clause which is conceived for the purpose of dealing with the six months' winter population instead of six months' summer population, whereas the services of these towns have to be conceived for the summer population. For five or six months in the year, these towns have a population well in excess of the 20,000 limit, and the civic departments of these towns must have adequate public services and various other amenities to make them attractive to the weary town dweller, in these circumstances, the Government ought to take into account the summer population and give power to the Secretary of State for Scotland to raise the status of these towns to that of a large burgh. This Bill is for the purpose of stimulating industry. I would say, therefore, that if you provide a more attractive and a more alluring place where the hard-worked industrialist can get his health and strength back again the Government will be adding something to the help they are already giving to industry.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: I am very sorry I was not in to hear the earlier part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech. I wish to associate myself with the new Clause. The hon. and gallant Member has been speaking for the coast towns in his constituency, but we have other little towns in Ayrshire. In my own constituency, we have a very fine watering-place in the town of Girvan. I understand it is the most pleasant town on the whole Ayrshire coast, and it is my duty to tell the House so. I want to explain that anybody who has been staying at Prestwick and tries a year of Girvan will see the difference at once. But that is not really the point. Girvan is a small burgh round about 7,000 or 8,000 in population, but in the summer it comes up to round about 20,000. I do not see why the Government could not give us this Clause. I would even accept a little Amendment to it and say "shall" instead of "may," but, knowing something about the psychology of the Scottish character, particularly the Scottish Convention and that you should ask to do a thing by grace rather than
compulsion, I would rather get it by argument and showing how much benefit it would be to these little towns than by compulsion. It is better to get a thing by agreement. There is nothing to hinder the Secretary of State for Scotland from accepting this Clause so as to raise these burghs to the status desired, and it will be a big help in many respects. All I want to do is to identify myself with this Clause. I trust that when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State gets up to speak he will be able to say, as he has been able to say on other occasions, that this is so reasonable and will be so likely to assist us in the smaller burghs that he will accept it at once without further argument.

Lieut.-Colonel SHAW: I want to associate myself with this Clause, and, in case this House has any doubt in its own mind, I would like to point out that Gourock also should be considered. Up to this time, we have heard the beauty of various other parts of Scotland extolled, but in the case of Gourock there are exceptional features. It is within more easy reach of the great centre of Glasgow than any other seaside resort, and it is one which during the summer months attracts a great number of visitors. The town council of Gourock have by their energy and enterprise done a great deal to attract visitors to Gourock.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): It is necessary to have some limit to the time hon. Members devote to advertising the amenities of their constituencies. It is in order to refer to a town as an example of a place which would be affected by the new Clause; but hon. Members must confine the advertisement to a reasonable limit of time, and I think the hon. Member has devoted full time to it.

Mr. SHINWELL: Hon. Members representing other burghs have extolled their advantages, so surely other Members are entitled to do so.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Quite so. I have allowed brief references and will allow others the same limits, but not more.

Lieut.-Colonel SHAW: Having associated myself with this Clause, I feel I have done all that is required.

Mr. SHINWELL: I cannot see why hon. Members who represent seaside constituencies should have had it all their own way. There are towns in certain parts of Scotland, for example in my constituency, which compare favourably from the point of view of beauty and historical interest to anything on the sea coast. For example, there is Linlithgow, reminiscent of Mary Queen of Scots, Darnley, and other historical figures. It has a picturesque palace to say nothing of other attractions. If I may go further and direct attention to the amenities of Broxburn and district, I should like to point out that they have mountains of shale. I have not exhausted its possibilities.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is exactly what the hon. Member must not do.

Mr. SHINWELL: I did rise to say, having regard to the nature of the Debate, that I should like to protest against hon. Members using their position in this assembly to give a free advertisement to certain places in their own constituency. I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) is not here to take advantage of the opportunity. I think a reasonable case can be submitted on behalf of the Clause. There is no reason why burghs which increase their population at certain times of the year, as a result of which they require to submit to certain disadvantages which would not otherwise obtain, should not occupy the status of larger burghs. It is a very reasonable proposition, apart from the comments that have been made upon the advantages or disadvantages of different parts of one constituency.

Major ELLIOT: I do not think it can be said that the hon. Member who has just spoken clearly interpreted the Debate which we have just had, in his contention that a case has been made out. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), in moving the Second Reading of this Clause, dealt with towns for which perhaps there might be some argument. The case was mentioned of a town which may be part of a county and is disjoined to a considerable extent by intervening channels of salt water, although not by
action of His Majesty's Government, since a recent Amendment was accepted. But the whole question of altering the constitution of the great major permanent services because of some temporary fluctuations in population really cannot be seriously advanced for the consideration of the House. If there were any claim that could be brought forward it was fully met when my right hon. Friend decided to leave the whole of the services of water, of drainage, and of housing within the purview not merely of certain burghs, but of all burghs.
The case advanced had to deal to a large extent with the need of a fluctuating population. But provision for those needs does remain with the smaller burghs and with all burghs. Water supply is undoubtedly a case which has to be reviewed. Drainage and sanitation are essentially things which have to be reviewed. If some of the figures of population that have been given are correct those services would need to be brought even more up to date than they are now. But it is not to be considered that a fluctuating population requires special provision to be made for education, for poor relief, for lunacy and mental deficiency. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) eulogised certain burghs in his constituency for their imagination and enthusiasm. But there are certain things which seem to me to go rather counter to the interests of economy and efficiency. In the Northern district of Ayrshire, in six small burghs, there are six infectious disease hospitals. They average 14 beds each. It is imposible to suppose that some advantage would not be gained by combination in such cases. Surely it is only reasonable to say that the object of efficient service would be better served by a combination which would enable full use to be made of each of these institutions. On more than one occasion the opposition of a smaller burgh has led to the opportunity for this combination being missed.
I remember that three or four years ago a part of Spring Vale hospital belonging to Ardrossan and Saltcoats was destroyed by fire. Here was an opportunity for combination with Irvine. Not at all. These two burghs preferred to re-establish the building which has been destroyed. We are not bringing forward these proposals as a series of temporary adjust
ments between county and burgh, but as a serious attempt to make a strong financial unit which will be able to lay its plans for the future, to make the fullest use of existing institutional accommodation, and in general to plan its policy over a period of years. To suggest that because some seaside resort happens to pass into a temporary phase of popularity, or because some particular town happens to have a race meeting, or even becomes the centre of a greyhound racing track and attracts a special population during some months of the year—to suggest that for that reason the great scheme of the major health services and the administration services should be warped, is not really bringing forward arguments which should seriously alter the judgment which the Committee has come to, that the 20,000 limit should stand.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Under-Secretary has given us one illustration showing that two adjacent burghs did not combine as they might have combined for efficiency, and economy. Is it not the case that the overwhelming majority of the burghs in Scotland for many years have combined to run, where necessary and profitable, joint infectious disease hospitals, even where their areas are not even in the same county? It is not fair that one illustration should be used by the Under-Secretary to give the impression that the burghs of Scotland have so far failed in their duty as to—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has really exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I put my point in a shorter form? May I ask the Under-Secretary to address himself to the actual facts and figures given on behalf of the burgh of Rothesay? I asked him a specific question. Is it not the case that there can be no connection whatever in the winter months between the burgh of Rothesay and the Isle of Arran, to which it is attached under this Bill?

Major ELLIOT: I think I dealt completely with the case adduced regarding Rothesay, when I pointed out that the population which was given as the winter population of Rothesay was a population which, by the accident of the census, was taken in June. Even in Scotland our winter does not extend into
June. By June the population of Rothesay has already risen towards the peak, which continues only for a week or two weeks. The hon. Member is not seriously asking us to consider raising the whole position of a burgh because for one week or two weeks it passes out of the category of the small burgh. The population of 15,000 was calculated in June.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is a question of fact. I think I said, and I ought to have said, that my information was that the average population of Rothesay for the months of July and August was 40,000.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member gave figures which, of course, it is difficult to check, but he did refer to the census figure, and the census figure is not over 20,000. One cannot take a figure which fluctuates in this way; one must take an average figure for the whole year. Rothesay cannot be considered alone among the towns of Scotland.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: We all listened with admiration to the speeches of the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite who, with so much spirit and enthusiasm, defended the claims of burghs in their own constituencies. At the same time the weakness of that form of argument is that people are a little apt to overstress the claims of their constituencies and thereby to weaken the argument for a Clause which is based on a sound principle. For example, there was quoted in favour of the new Clause a burgh which had a population of only 7,000, and rose to 15,000. Obviously such a burgh would fall far outside the Clause. Such a skilled dialectician as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was, of course, quick to seize upon this weak point in the argument, and to try to laugh the Clause out of court by drawing attention to some small burghs in Ayrshire which keep a few small hospitals, and in fact he poured doubt on whether a large number of the burghs mentioned had in fact ever reached the 20,000 limit even during the holiday season. Of course, in so far as the Under-Secretary has proved that some of these arguments which have been used in support of the Clause are unsound. I agree with him, but
he has not tackled the main principle of the new Clause, which relates to those burghs where undoubtedly as the Clause states,
during the summer months of every year they have habitually a population in excess of the population which determines the status of large burghs.
Those cases are not affected by the Under-Secretary's arguments. He tried to ridicule the new Clause by talking about the burgh where there might be a greyhound racing track and people might come in for a week for the racing. But that is not at all the kind of burgh which would be affected by the Clause. The Clause can affect only burghs which "habitually" have a population during the summer months in excess of the population which determines the status of a large burgh. I agree that a lot of the burghs that have been mentioned could not come within that definition, but there are burghs, Oban, Dunoon, St. Andrews and others, which undoubtedly "habitually" have a population in excess of 20,000. It is those which the Clause is designed to serve. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was able to ride off on the illustration of some little burghs in Ayrshire which had their own infectious disease hospitals and which refused to combine. Of course that case is very exceptional. I do not believe the hon. and gallant Gentleman could name another case of that kind. These small burghs would probably be outside this proposal, and, even if they were not, there would, in time, be voluntary combinations. Although on one occasion an opportunity may have been missed of bringing about amalgamation it is impossible to suppose that, with the prudent and strong guidance which they receive from the hon. and gallant Gentleman from time to time, these burghs would not eventually, by voluntary means, bring about that combination which he desiderates.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the new Clause would alter the arrangements which are proposed. It would leave the arrangements as they are now with one important exception, namely the control of education. It is quite true that that would fall to the new burgh but I was rather surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman use that argument against the proposed new Clause. When we were discussing the control of education, one of the best
speeches in support of the Government's proposals for doing away with the ad hoc system and bringing in the ad omnia system was made by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) who used as an illustration in support of that policy, a well-known example of the success which Ayr burgh bad in looking after its education. He said what a magnificent thing it was to have education looked after in a burgh by a municipality. Therefore, I do not think there is much to fear even if, incidentally, the effect of the proposal were to be as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested. It will be seen that we have on the Paper an Amendment to the proposed new Clause and I am speaking now because I am afraid we shall not have an opportunity of moving it. If this question were left to the free vote of the Scottish Members I have no doubt the new Clause would be carried, but I am afraid a large majority of English Members will vote down this proposal, and, so, we shall not have an opportunity of moving our Amendment. The effect of our Amendment would not be to apply compulsion to these burghs to become large burghs, but we do not believe that these matters should be left to the decision of the Secretary of State. We believe that Parliament should say, definitely, that in a case like this—not a case like those quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but, the only possible case which could arise under this proposal, the case of a small burgh which has an habitual population of over 20,000 people in the summer months for which it has to provide an elaborate and up-to-date health system—the burgh should have the right, without depending on the fiat of the Secretary of State, to become a large burgh. If it is suggested that any of them would be unwilling, and if that is the only objection which the Secretary of State feels to the acceptance of this proposal we shall be prepared to add other words such as "with the consent of"—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are now discussing the Second Reading of the proposed new Clause, and the hon. and gallant Baronet may refer to his Amendment; he must not make a detailed speech purely on an Amendment which is not before the House.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Our Amendment was criticised by the hon. and gallant
Gentleman who spoke for the Government.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Baronet is perfectly right. I allowed the hon. and gallant Gentleman considerable latitude, but I think the discussion is now reaching a point at which it is developing into a Debate on the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet rather than a Debate on the Second Reading of the proposed new Clause.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I only wanted to make it clear that we would be prepared to accept an Amendment which would remove any idea of compulsion being placed on any burgh. I hope the new Clause will be added to the Bill.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I also support the proposed new Clause because we have in Argyll three burghs, namely, Dunoon, Oban and Campbeltown, to which these considerations apply. A very large portion of the population of Argyll is concentrated in these three burghs. As a matter of fact, I think it would have been better if the county had been divided into three combined town and county council areas, with one of these burghs at the head of each. Failing that, there is a feeling in these burghs that it will be a great hardship if many of their services are to be removed from them to sparsely populated districts of the county. I believe the Secretary of State has the power to remove the health services in a case of this kind. That would be a great hardship to a burgh like Oban, which has voluntarily taken charge of the whole district in this respect and provided an excellent hospital. The hospital has been provided by the generosity of the Oban people themselves. I do not expect, of course, that the Secretary of State would remove that to a sparsely populated district, but it would be much better for these burghs if they were enabled to preserve their present status. They are really large burghs.
In Dunoon, for example, in the summertime they have often over 40,000 visitors every week arriving at the piers, independent of the vast numbers who come by motor. Large numbers reside there all through the summer, and, taking all the fluctuations of population into account, we get a figure running into 100,000. Similarly in Oban, and to a less
extent in Campbeltown, there is this access of population during the summer. The resident population who are there for the 12 months of the year really make provision for the summer visitors. They have provided the health services to suit very large populations—much larger populations than are to be found in some of the large burghs—and they feel very strongly they ought to be outwith the purview of this Bill. I wish the new Clause had a little more elasticity so that it would be possible if a place ceased to be fashionable or to attract large crowds—though I do not think that will ever happen in Argyll—for the Secretary of State to put it back again into the position of a small burgh. As these places at present stand they really are large burghs for six months of the year, with all the services which large burghs require. There is also this peculiarity in regard to places like Dunoon and Oban. They have large wide esplanades which have cost thousands of pounds to construct—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member has split up his advertisement of his constituency into a number of small compartments, but, I am afraid that when they are put together he has exhausted the time I can allow him to devote to that.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I was only pointing out one of the reasons why these should be considered as large burghs. They have these esplanades and boulevards for their summer visitors. They are naturally anxious at the prospect of these matters being remitted to a county council in case the same attention or the same expenditure may not be devoted to them. They are worried about the fact that certain liabilities may arise and they are desirous of knowing as to how they will stand in regard to the liabilities which they have incurred in making provision for very large populations. On the question of population I suggest that a fair way of arriving at the real population of one of these burghs is to add the permanent winter population to the summer population and divide the result by two. I ask the Secretary of State to consider carefully whether it is not possible, in the case of Argyll to give these burghs the status of large burghs. Another of the difficulties in this
matter is that the meeting place of the county council will inevitably be Glasgow and it will be very difficult for the representatives of these burghs—who are generally men engaged in business—to go away from home for a day or perhaps two days in order to attend the county council meetings. Therefore, these burghs will not be as well represented as they might be on the reconstituted county council. If the Bill had split Argyll into three or four parts it might have been possible to run town and county districts together but that has not been done. While it is all very well to have a cut-and-dried plan if you have districts to suit it, I suggest that you cannot have uniformity where there is a variety of circumstances and I think the Bill ought to have been made to suit the circumstances of the districts instead of trying to make the districts suit the circumstances of the Bill.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary has treated this matter rather lightly by citing cases such as that of a town where there is dog racing for a matter of a few weeks in the year with a consequent temporary increase of population. I think that was a rather deliberate evasion of the point as to "habitual population." It is the habitual population which is in view and in many of these burghs the increase of population prevails during half the year. Reference has been made to St. Andrews. It is an outstanding case of a university centre of great historical interest and in that case the increase of population relates to the larger portion of the year. To handle the thing in the way that the Under-Secretary did does not appear to me to be facing the strength of the argu

ments that have been put from both sides of the House. There is also the necessity for Parliament definitely settling such burghs as shall have the status of large burghs, but unfortunately that cannot be considered on this Clause. The action of the Government in rejecting this Clause will, I am sure, accentuate the hostility that has been aroused by the Bill as a whole.

Dr. SHIELS: It will be remembered that when we were discussing the transference of the major health functions of the county councils, this question was brought up, and it was agreed, I think, by the Government spokesman that the reservation in that Clause which admitted the retention of a medical officer of health in particular cases might be used for the case of the burghs which we are now discussing: and I would like to ask if the Government reaffirm the position which they took up then, because I think it is very appropriate to some of the cases which we have had brought before us to-day. If we take Oban and St. Andrews and some other places, we find that these burghs have been supplying not only their own health services, but the health services for the county, and hospital accommodation as well, and, therefore, I think there is an obvious case for their retaining, at any rate, their medical officer of health and their control over the major health functions. If the Government were to reassure hon. Members who are interested in these burghs that that is the position, it might be some compensation for their inability to accept this new Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 115: Noes, 205.

Division No. 249.]
AYES.
[5.48 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Ammon, Charles George
Buchanan, G.
England, Colonel A.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Barnes, A.
Cape, Thomas
Forrest, W.


Barr, J.
Charleton, H. C.
Gardner, J. P.


Batty, Joseph
Clarke, A. B.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Cluse, W. S.
Gibbins, Joseph


Bellamy, A.
Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Gillett. George M.


Benn, Wedgwood
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Greenall, T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Compton, Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Bethel, A.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Briant, Frank
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Grundy, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Day, Harry
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Bromley, J.
Duncan, C.
Hardle, George D.


Harris, Percy A.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Stamford, T. W.


Hayday, Arthur
Montague, Frederick
Stephen, Campbell


Hirst, G. H.
Morris, R. H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Strauss, E. A.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Sutton, J. E.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Murnin, H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, George Harold
Tinker, John Joseph


Kelly, W. T.
Owen, Major G.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Kennedy, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Townend, A. E.


Lawrence, Susan
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Lawson, John James
Potts, John S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lee, F.
Ritson, [...].
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Lowth, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lunn, William
Scurr, John
Westwood, J.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Shield, G. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Mackinder, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wiggins, William Martin


MacLaren, Andrew
Shinwell, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sitch, Charles H.
Windsor, Walter


Macquisten, F. A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


March, S.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



Maxton, James
Snell, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson


NOES.


Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Looker, Herbert William


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Ellis, R. G.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lumley, L. R.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Atholl, Duchess of
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fermoy, Lord
McLean, Major A


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Fielden, E. B.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ford, Sir P. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.


Berry, Sir George
Freemantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Blundell, F. N.
Gates, Percy
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bocthby, R. J. G.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Briggs, J. Harold
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Briscoe, Richard George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hanbury, C.
Pilcher, G.


Bullock, Captain M.
Harland, A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burman, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Preston, William


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Raine, Sir Walter


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ramsden, E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Christie, J. A.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Remer, J. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Clayton, G. C.
Hilton, Cecil
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ropner, Major L.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ross, R. D.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cooper, A. Duff
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rye, F. G.


Cope, Major Sir William
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Couper, J. B.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Salmon, Major I.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer
Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hurst, Sir Gerald
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Iveagh Countess of
Sandon, Lord


Dalkeith, Earl of
James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Savery, S. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Skelton, A. N.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, I. Q.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lister, Cunliffe, St. Hon. Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Thomson, Sir Frederick
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Waddington, R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Storry-Deans, R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Styles, Captain H. Walter
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)



Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watts, Sir Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tasker, R. Inigo.
Wells, S. R.
Major the Marquess of Titchfield


Templeton, W. P.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple and Captain Wallace.



Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next three new Clauses, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston—(Delegation by town councils of large burghs to district councils), (Establishment of a district council for each large burgh and county of a city), and (Provisions relating to district councils of large burghs and counties of a city")—seem to form a connected group: but if the hon. Member desires to move them, I suggest he should move the second of them as I do not think they are placed in the best order.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We had a discussion on them all together in Committee on the understanding that we had only one Division.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The principle running through these Clauses seems to me to be one that can be most conveniently discussed on the second of the three; therefore I have suggested the hon. Member move that first. Of course if it is not read a Second time, the other two will fall with it.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Establishment of a district council for each large burgh and county of a city.)

(1) A district council shall be established for every large burgh and every county of a city.

(2) The members of the district council shall be elective and for the purpose of their election each municipal ward of the burgh or county of the city shall be an electoral division, and such one or more members as the town council of the burgh shall by order determine shall be elected for each such electoral division by the parish electors therein.

(3) Subject to the necessary modifications the existing statutory provisions regulating the election of parish councillors shall apply to the election of members of burgh district councils, and the first election of such councillors shall take place in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-nine.—[Mr. Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
These three new Clauses are of very considerable importance to the large burghs in Scotland. There are now, I think, 23 large burghs in Scotland, including Arbroath, which was incorporated as a large burgh very largely as a result of the efforts of the hon. Member who represents that Division in this House, but there are now 23 large burghs, which pay something like 80 per cent. of the Poor Law relief paid in Scotland. They do not have a separate control of Poor Law administration. As the Bill now stands they have Poor Law administration, mental deficiency, and lunacy handed over to their town councils and city councils, which then appoint Poor Law committees, and they co-opt members on those committees to supervise the distribution and the administration of Poor Law relief. I would ask hon. Members to consider the situation as it will actually and of a certainty arise in the five large cities of Scotland.
6.0 p.m.
Take Glasgow for an example. Glasgow is declared to have somewhere between 200 and 600 meetings of its town council members. Some members may be on committees to which they are only summoned on 200 occasions, others on committees to which they are summoned on 600 occasions, but between these two figures lie the numbers of committee meetings to which the members of the Corporation of the City of Glasgow are summoned. It is common knowledge that the average member of a city corporation cannot attend 200 meetings and give the attention to the business of those committees that ought to be given by a representative of the people. It is common knowledge also that, as things are now, members, in order to get attendance marks, simply put their heads in at the door of a committee meeting, the clerk marks them as present, and they
bolt off to another committee meeting which is being held in another part of the building. It may be that one way out of the difficulty is for members to be appointed to fewer sub-committees of the corporation, but that would present serious difficulties in a city like Glasgow, where each ward has its own interests. As things are now, the business of the corporation requires an attendance at somewhere about 200 committees a year as a minimum.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: More.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I said "as a minimum," and I do not want to have the hon. and learned Member proving that the average is somewhere about 300. The minimum is 200; and there are members who attend as many as 600 meetings in the year. We find the same circumstances in other large cities in Scotland. I have asked members of the Corporations of Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen to give me a fair estimate of how much time is required from a councillor to attend to his duties in an average week, and I am told that it takes from two-and-a-half to three days per week in the large cities. If in addition to the work which a city councillor presently has he is to be called upon to undertake the administration of education, and if we discover that on an average that will require one day per week; if, in addition, he has to undertake the business of the distribution of Poor Law relief, and if, as we are informed, it takes the average parish councillor in the large burghs somewhere about two days per week to attend to his duties, then we must conclude that in any of the five large cities in Scotland it will be physically impossible for any city councillor, even though he give up his full time to the work, to attend to the duties properly.
In this Bill the right hon. Gentleman shows that he appreciates that difficulty. He says, in effect, "A city councillor cannot attend to municipal affairs, to education and to Poor Law affairs, and so I will give powers to city councils to co-opt men and women of experience or skill in education and in Poor Law matters." All those three new Clauses which we are moving raise inferentially the whole question of co-option. We do
not believe in co-option, because under it public money will be spent by men and women who are not responsible to the electors for the spending of that money. We believe the bulk of the people to be co-opted will not in any sense be representative of the electors, but people who otherwise could not get on those authorities. We believe this system of co-option runs counter to the whole principle of democracy, and that under it the right hon. Gentleman will secure neither efficiency nor economy, but that, instead, we shall have autocracy and bureaucracy.
I have been a member of a county education authority and have seen the affairs of that authority slide away—inevitably—from the control of the elected representatives of the people into the hands of the education officer. This education officer, who is there the whole time, is the only man who is in touch with all the districts. The elected representatives are in touch with their own several districts, but only this permanent official, this co-ordinating representative, knows all the facts; and in the course of less than 12 months I have seen practically the whole administration of education in a county fall into the hands of this education officer. We are asking in this new Clause that the large cities and large burghs shall be given the power which has already been given to the rural districts, the power, that is, to set up elected committees to undertake Poor Law administration. If such committees are set up we shall get as members representatives of the people and members able to devote time to the work. If we do not have such elected committees, the distribution of Poor Law relief in the large cities will fall into the hands of permanent officials and non-elected and co-opted representatives, a system which will be in contradistinction to that operating in the rural districts. Because we believe it is physically impossible for men or women in large cities to give the time required to look after municipal affairs, education affairs and Poor Law affairs; because we believe that the very attempt to get them means the introduction of the system of co-option; and because we believe that co-option is a bad system and anti-democratic, I beg to move the Second Heading of the Clause standing in my name.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to second the Motion.
I am the more anxious to insist upon retaining the measure of control asked for in this series of new Clauses by reason of what is already beginning to take place even before this Bill has become an Act of Parliament. Instances have already been brought to my notice showing exactly how the changes to be made under the Bill are intended to operate. In the Glasgow area a number of parish councils will be going out of existence, and their functions will be carried on by a great central local governing body. One of these parishes is the parish of Govan, and another is the parish of Eastwood. I would remind the Under-Secretary of the eloquent speech he made at an earlier stage of this Bill's progress in which he said that the welfare and the health of the children were a primary consideration in the mind of the Government, and that they hoped the additional powers given by the Bill and the changes made under it would provide greater opportunities for building up a healthy Scottish nation.
The properly-elected members of the Govan Parish Council decided that the allowances being made for the maintenance of unemployed and poor people were insufficient, and proposed to increase the allowance for each child requiring relief. But the Scottish Board of Health, meaning the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, who have brought forward this Bill with the object, as they say, of raising the standard of physique of the people of Scotland, refused to allow to the Govan Parish Council to make those small additions to the income of those poor people, although they know as well as any two men in the House how Govan has suffered through the slump in shipbuilding and engineering, a matter for which the workers in Govan have absolutely no responsibility whatever. In the parish of Eastwood, not more than a mile or two away from Govan, and represented in this House by the Secretary of State, there is a parish council mainly representative of the very comfortable section of the community, with poor people in the minority. That parish council does not decide to increase the amount of poor relief, but, in view of the fact that it is going out of existence, and that its administrative expenses will fall
to be borne by the city area instead of by its own rather limited area, it decides to increase the salary of the inspector of the poor by a very considerable amount. The Secretary of State refuses to allow Govan to pay increased allowances for starving children; but in reply to protests about the action of the Eastwood Parish Council he states that he has no right to interfere with the local autonomy of Eastwood, when the parish council there decide to make a very handsome and unwarranted addition to the already high salary of an official.
It seems to me that this is one of the clearest demonstrations of what Scotland has to expect if it allows the democratic control of its local functions to pass to wider areas and into the hands of unelected bodies with the Secretary of State as the court of appeal. Where a local authority is attempting to do something for the amelioration of the lot of the worst-off section of the community, then the Secretary of State exercises his bureaucratic power and says to that body, "You are not to be allowed to be generous to the poor." When, on the other hand, a reactionary authority decides to spend public money in increasing the emoluments of an already overpaid official, the Secretary of State says, "We cannot interfere with local autonomy." I think that is atrocious. It is disgraceful that these two things should have happened while this Bill is going through this House. It is a clear indication of the intentions of the Government in introducing the Bill, namely, to give to the vested interests of the country the power to press the poor down to a still lower level, to increase the powers of bureaucracy and to increase the emoluments of public officials.

Mr. HARDIE: We have now before the Scottish Department one of the many instances of what is meant by indirect administration. I think it might appropriately be termed indirect legislation. When we come to administration, the reality about the whole matter is that it becomes direct. In the case of the city of Glasgow we have the astounding fact that under the existing parish council we have a number of unemployed who have gone through their period of benefit. They get a certain class of work to do in an adjoining parish, but the
money paid to these men is quite inadequate to keep their families. When we are appealed to by these men who are suffering because of their inadequate wages, we discover that there is nothing direct between them and their employers. When the body who employs them is approached and complaints are made about the inadequate wages which are being paid, the men are told by the particular body who employs them that they have nothing to do with the rate of wages and they they are merely agents.
What happens in these circumstances? The parish councils say that while it is true that they employ the men, they are not directly concerned or responsible for the amount of wages paid. That is the kind of thing that will take place if this Bill is allowed to become an Act of Parliament. We now discover that this House has no direct contact with the Glasgow Parish Council, and has no responsibility for the amount of wages paid. The Scottish Board of Health has a Department which determines what is to be paid by the Glasgow Parish Council when employing able-bodied destitute men. One can see from the new Clauses of this Bill that the whole idea is to get some form of indirect administration. Those who have had long years of association with this kind of administration hold that, just as the system brings out all the growing needs of a locality, the one way to get rid of those needs under direct administration is to have some form of indirect administration, and the more indirect it is the more difficult it becomes for those in need.
We all agree that 35s. a week is a totally inadequate wage for these men, but the local authority is told by those who govern that 33s. is the sum to be paid, and they must not pay any more. The body that has engaged these men is not to blame because it is doing what it has been told to do. The result is that you cannot deal with the men who are responsible, because the whole thing is administered by the Scottish Board of Health. That is why I am opposed to all this reconstruction of local administration. Of course, it is not the business of the inspector of the poor to say anything about these matters, because the Department decides these questions, and in that way we lose the human touch.
The loss of the human touch is a characteristic of this Bill, and it is done to save money. You are not only losing the human touch, but you are losing more; you are losing human beings.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The House will not be surprised when I say that the Government cannot accept a new Clause in this form. This proposal re-opens the questions which we have already discussed very fully, and if it were added to the Bill it would reimpose the ad hoc authority to deal with poor relief, a system which we have decided not to have in the future. Both the Mover and the Seconder of this Motion, and others who have spoken, have made it clear that the feature which they dislike in the Bill as it stands at present is co-option. The plan and scheme of this Bill is to unify the task of looking after the poor instead of having them, as in the past, looked after by parish councils with a variation of circumstances, boundaries and methods which have not always worked satisfactorily. We have decided that these methods shall be unified and brought under the councils either of cities like Glasgow or the councils of other large burghs. The essence of the scheme is that the responsibility for the finance and administration of poor law administration shall lie in the hands of the town council. Under the method proposed by the scheme which the town councils will produce, any necessary evolution or improvement in local management may be carried out.
This proposed new Clause would strike fundamentally at the root of the responsibility of the town council, and for that reason we cannot allow an elected body to be set up within the bounds of the city itself. In such a case the body to deal with this branch of administration ought to be a committee of the town council. If the town council come to the conclusion that they have not got sufficient time or enough members to carry out the detailed work connected with these problems, then they can, under the scheme of the Bill and the provisions we are making, add to their number by co-opting those who have in the past served on the Poor Law authorities and who possess local knowledge. The local body will have power to co-opt people who have a knowledge of these subjects,
and they can do this to the extent of one-third of their number.

Mr. STEWART: I want the Secretary of State for Scotland to make this point clear. Are the Government proposing in this Bill that the persons who are to be co-opted must of necessity be people who already possess a knowledge of the administration of the Poor Law?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In the first instance, I imagine that these individuals would be largely drawn from the members of the existing council. There are many other individuals whose advice and assistance, on account of their knowledge of the circumstances of the people amongst whom they live, might be a great advantage, although they may not have served on Poor Law authorities. For these reasons, I think it would not be wise or judicious to limit the selection. It is clear that this proposal cuts fundamentally across the scheme of the Bill, and for the reasons I have stated the Government are unable to accept the Clause.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The Secretary of State for Scotland correctly stated that the principle underlying this proposed new Clause has been debated and decided on by the House at a previous stage; but the right hon. Gentleman must surely be aware, as we all are, that, as the Bill has been discussed, it has revealed very clearly to us the manifold activities of public life in Scotland. I would invite the Secretary of State to consider this simple point of view. It is often said that these large authorities should be able to administer the work in their towns, because the House of Commons is successful in guiding the destinies of this great country. That argument, however, seems to me to be based on a fallacy. The House of Commons, as I conceive it, is a deliberative assembly controlling the policy of His Majesty's Government; it is not an administrative assembly. Whenever the House of Commons endeavours to interfere with the administration of His Majesty's Government, it is, in my judgment, very seldom successful.
These large elected bodies in Scotland, administering the thousand and one things which crop up in their areas, are mainly administrative bodies, and, surely, bear
ing in mind our numerous activities and the difficulties that we all experience in giving daily attention to our work, it stands to reason that, the larger the body, the less chance there is of its keeping a real democratic control over the services which have been entrusted to it. I am sure every hon. Member of this House will agree with me that the only way in which you can effectively control a business is by giving day-to-day and hour-to-hour attention to its details, and, therefore, if, as we all desire, there is to be real democratic control of the services entrusted to these elected bodies, that can only be done efficiently, and that direct human touch which has been referred to this afternoon can only be maintained, by men who are day by day, morning by morning and afternoon by afternoon, giving attention to the administration which has been entrusted to them. As I look at the Bill and its numerous provisions, it seems to me that these large elected bodies will undoubtedly get out of touch with their constituents, and that smaller authorities in these large towns should be in a better position to keep in touch with their constituencies. For that reason I support the Clause.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: I am sure the House must have been disappointed at the attitude taken up by the Secretary of State towards this proposed new Clause. The Clause simply asks, for the larger burghs, what has already been set up for the counties. It asks for nothing more than that. Already, under the Bill, district councils have been established for the counties, but the Secretary of State says that the proposal to set up a district council within a large burgh is not practicable and will complicate the Measure. I do not see how it is going to complicate the Measure at all. I contend that it is just as easy and suitable and serviceable to have a district council inside a large burgh as it is to have a district council in a county. The district council was conceded to the county in order to make sure that the Poor Law was administered with knowledge and sympathy. It was contended, during the Debate on the Second Reading that, if we attempted to administer the Poor Law from one centre in a county, it would not be properly administered, and, in order to meet that objection, the Secretary of State devised this scheme of district councils.
The objection that was urged from the point of view of county administration of the Poor Law can also be urged from the point of view of burgh administration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) indicated, in the larger burghs the councillors are attending from 200 to 600 meetings a year, and, in those circumstances, obviously, the administration of education and the Poor Law will suffer. The only way of getting over that difficulty is by setting up district councils inside these large burghs. It is proposed that each ward in the burgh should form a district council area, and I submit to the Secretary of State that a ward in any burgh is a quite big enough area for the administration of the Poor Law. The district council would include representatives from the town council, and also representatives elected from the ward on the same footing as the representatives who are to be elected to the district councils under the county scheme.
It should be perfectly possible in our burghs to elect all the representatives who are to deal with our public affairs, and, that being so, I cannot understand why the Secretary of State should insist upon the principle of co-option there, when he has abandoned it for the county areas. If he was able to agree that the district councils in the county areas should be elected, surely it should be possible for him to agree that the burgh electors can elect representatives to a district council within the burgh, which will be charged with the administration of the Poor Law and any other services that the town council may ask the district council to undertake. It will certainly cause very great surprise in Scotland that, in the areas where no co-option is necessary, we are to have co-option, while in the wide county districts an elective system has been adopted for the administration of the Poor Law and other services, and I would appeal to the Secretary of State to reconsider this matter, and to give to the burghs that which he has already conceded to the counties.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The right hon. Gentleman said that we should not be surprised at his not accepting this Clause. I certainly am not surprised. The right hon. Gentleman is remarkably stubborn in facing so reason
able a proposition as this. It is quite true, as he says, that the main points of the proposal has been discussed before, but we are not merely voicing the views of the leading parish councils of Scotland, for, as he is aware, it is true to say that this Clause is put forward by the leading parish councils of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman has said that under his plan there will be unification, but I respectfully differ from that view. I do not think that there is any assurance that that will be so. The parish councils, in their own memorandum, say:
It is desirable that there should be uniformity of administration in the various areas in the country, and, if there are created district councils for the counties and for the burgh and city areas, all the delegated functions, including Poor Law, lunacy and mental deficiency, would be administered by similar authorities, and not, as at present proposed, by co-opted members in one area and elected members in another. Uniformity of administration can only be secured if there is statutory requirement to this effect.
That is the case put in a nutshell by those who are able to speak for these parish councils. They express the actuality of the situation, instead of the merely theoretical view put forward by the Secretary of State. The difficulty which members of councils will find in dealing with the multifarious business which will be submitted to them under the new plan is a very tangible difficulty. Speaking with some experience of parish council work, I can say that those who have given their attention to it have largely specialised in that work, and it has often been stated in other constituencies than my own that undoubtedly parish council work was pre-eminent in its claim for specialised attention and handling by those who were deeply interested in it.
From the democratic standpoint the system of co-option is most unsatisfactory, and, even allowing for the point made by the Secretary of State that, at the outset, perhaps, this work will be taken up by people who have already served on parish councils, that situation will eventually evaporate and disappear, and it will be found difficult to get people to enter upon the handling of affairs of this kind and yet not have that control and responsibility with which they have so successfully carried out their work in the parish councils.
Reference was made to the likelihood under this extensive scheme of people adopting the plan of giving in their names as being present at meetings, and getting a wonderful record of attendances on a very thin basis. I was very much surprised to find that that system which is prevalent in our town councils is actually adopted upstairs, and I certainly do not want to adopt that plan—I do not want any camouflaged attendance as far as I am concerned.
It would be a very unsatisfactory feature of any new scheme adopted by the Government if it were going to accelerate that system under which people find themselves practically unable to accomplish all that is laid down for them, and slide into this very neglectful and not at all creditable plan of public service. I submit that the appeal to which I have referred from the leading parish councils of Scotland is an appeal from those who have devoted, many of them, the service of a lifetime to this specialised work, and who hold, correctly, as I maintain, that this specialised work, which is so important to the suffering poor, is being relegated to the position of a side issue. That is not at all satisfactory, and is very far from what ought to obtain in the handling of the affairs of Scotland. I support most heartily the appeal that has been made from this side of the House.

Mr. STEPHEN: I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider his decision. He suggested that it would reopen the whole question as to whether there should be an ad hoc authority or not. I do not think it goes anywhere as far as that. All that is suggested in the Clause is that members of committees who are not members of the local council should really be elected members. The town council is going to set up its committee to deal with the matter. It appoints so many from its own members and it decides to co-opt so many. That is the position as it stands at present. If the Clause were carried the position would be that, instead of deciding to set up its committee, the members of the local authority who would have been on the committee appointed by the local authority will be on another committee, which is this district council of elected persons. The Secretary of State—I hope it is not
the effect of his illness—seems to have come back in a totally different frame of mind, because when we were discussing the question with regard to the county areas, and Members on his own benches were rising one after the other and pleading for there being this elected body, he got up and agreed to it. Now, when we suggest that the same tiling should apply in the large burghs, he tells us this is cutting into the ad hoc principle. It is no more doing that than it was previously with regard to the county areas, and it simply means that it is better that your committee should be of elected persons than of non-elected persons. There can be no doubt about that. I do not believe even the most die-hard Tory in facing the public would agree that a non-elected person was better than an elected one. He would not do it in speaking to the public, though possibly in his heart of hearts he believes it is true and prefers the charity organisation line.
I believe if the Government are going to free themselves from the complaint that an attempt is being made here in connection with the Poor Law and the poverty of the people, to make the administration of the Poor Law into something like what it used to be in days gone by, something appertaining to Bumbledom, the Secretary of State has really got to accept the Clause. We have had instances of how he himself, the paternal Conservative, would deal with the matter in the way he interfered with local authorities in the instances that have been mentioned where a parish council was willing to pay the same relief as the Glasgow Town Council, but the Secretary of State said, "No. you cannot do that." Then we have the Under-Secretary, in a most powerful peroration, laying down that the purpose of the Government was to provide sound minds and sound bodies with regard to the children, while the Secretary of State refuses one of these parish councils the right to increase the amount of relief they are giving for the children. Then he comes here and talks all this nonsense about this Amendment cutting into the ad hoc principle. If he likes the role of Bumble, well and good, but at least the people are entitled to know that the purpose of the Bill is to reintroduce Bumbledom into the administration of the Poor Law. I hope it is not the pur
pose of the right hon. Gentleman to do that, but I should like some explanation of how he reconciles his action towards the Govan Parish Council with the speech of the Under-Secretary. I do not believe they can be reconciled, but if you are going to have a committee administering the Poor Law, as the Secretary of State will admit he expects there will be, it is better that it should be wholly an elected committee than that there should be co-opted persons on it. We do not want these co-opted persons at all, even although the Secretary of State in his heart of hearts wants these benevolent looking gentlemen to come in and rob the poor people of what they are entitled to have.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: In principle this matter is the same as the one that was decided earlier, though in scope it is a very different thing. The principle of that is in the defence of the Secretary of State for refusing the Clause. The case of the Government has been based on their theory that everything must be done to centralise the health services under one control, so that team work may be carried out, so that, whether it is the medical service or the public health service now carried out by the town council or county council they should be under one control. But these Clauses do not undercut that principle, so that the Secretary of State is really driven to very weak ground. The ground of his defence is uniformity, and the illustration is a very interesting one. He is asked to deal with setting up district councils, and he does not take the case of Aberdeen and Edinburgh. He chooses the extreme illustration of the parish councils of Glasgow, Govan and the others. The fact is that this Clause provides for the administrative machine of the Poor Law, with the exception of the health services. Just as there was a powerful case in the landward parts of the country for setting up another ad hoc body in addition to the small burgh, so there is in the large burghs a very powerful case for setting up a directly elected body for this purpose.
I will not add to the wise words that have been spoken by others on the point of the over-burdening of the present Corporations. I think that is right. The point I want to put is this: The bulk of the present town councils are more
concerned with material than with human problems. Indirectly, of course, all the government of a great city affects the human life, but the decisions of the ordinary town council committee are decisions mainly directed to the problems of tramways, roads, gas and water, the material government of the city for the better life of the city. The whole problem of handling the Poor Law, apart from the health services connected with the Poor Law, is a human problem demanding close personal knowledge on the part of those administering relief. I make bold to say that the tragedy of the introduction of this Bill was that Ministers, when they desired to co-ordinate the health services of the country under one direction, did not realise how far that principle would lead them, and how many able and disinterested public citizens would be prevented from giving their personal knowledge of these human problems for the advantage of the administration of the Poor Law. Some of us feel very strongly about this matter. It is no small matter. The last return I have gives a total of 110,734 poor people, with dependants to the number of 113,197 in 103 selected parishes. I cannot say, because we have not the return, what proportion is in the large burghs, but of the 253,000 persons affected directly by this administration, 80 per cent. would be found inside these large burghs. It is not only a matter of the total, but there is that gravest of all the problems, the able-bodied unemployed men. In these parishes there is included in the total 30,000 able-bodied unemployed men, with 63,000 dependants, and outside the mining areas nearly the whole of them are concentrated in the large burghs.
The committee of a town council to be appointed under this Bill, partly elected to the town council for other purposes than this, not directly elected for this, and party appointed for this purpose, cannot handle this human problem of the able-bodied poor as effectively as the men who have been administering it with all the multifarious experience they have accumulated. Consider the case of Edinburgh. The parish council have been handling the problem of the able-bodied unemployed ever since 1921. They have had to handle an expenditure of no less than £881,500 since the slump in trade gave us this new and aggravated problem of
the able-bodied poor in our necessitous areas. The parish council in Glasgow in the same period has handled £2,704,000, in Govan £1,762,000, in Dundee £128,000, and in Aberdeen £165,000, in relief of the able-bodied unemployed. The magnitude of these financial operations shows that there is a very powerful case. It is not a matter of amour propre for the disinterested parish councils. It is a matter of practical knowledge of a very subtle and difficult problem. I believe under a system of election many more women will get the chance of exercising their knowledge, ability and sympathy than under the co-optive principle proposed in the Bill. It is, in my judgment, a retrograde step to hand over the administration of this vast problem to a partly co-opted body, and at this last hour I would ask the Secretary of State if he cannot see his way to meet us on this point, for I am sure the work will be better done.
I will give one illustration. I was in my constituency on Friday, and I met a member of the parish council of Edinburgh. I said, "How many days have you given to parish council work this week?" He said, "I have been at the offices five days." I do not believe the ordinary town councillor, elected for all the purposes of a large burgh, will be able to give that amount of time to the administration now given by parish councillors such as the one I have quoted. For that reason I have pleasure in supporting the Clause that this side of the Poor Law work be given over to district councillors elected in each ward of a large burgh.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would like to bring the mind of the House back to the magnitude of the human distress with which we are dealing. We are apt to allow our minds to become too mechanical and to forget that we are dealing with men, women and children, who are the victims of circumstances for which we are more responsible than they. According to the report of the right hon. Gentleman for 1927, no fewer than 238,000 people in Scotland required relief of one kind or another from the parish councils. Eighty per cent. of that large number are living in the large areas whose machinery we are now discussing. These parish councils are expected to carry out
the assistance to the poor in exactly the spirit in which that assistance is given by the ratepayers. If I pay rates to relieve the poor, I pay them cheerfully and in a good spirit, and I want the expenditure of these rates carried out in exactly the same spirit in which I contribute them to the public purse. We are dealing here with the machinery to be set up, and the machinery will express to a large extent the spirit of the administration. We can have either the paternal spirit, which regards the poor as the victims of the system under which they are compelled to live, or we can have the mechanical attitude, which regards them as a public nuisance.
We have had instances quoted this afternoon of the manner of approach usually adopted by the present Secretary of State for Scotland. We have been told that, when it was proposed to grant a little more relief and kindness to the children of Govan by the elected representatives of the ratepayers of Govan, he stepped in and prevented it. We have had another revelation of his mind towards the people who are not poor in the Eastwood parish where he agrees to public money being spent in the further enrichment of comparatively well-off officials. We have also seen his attitude towards the unemployed people at Lennox Castle where he refuses to give them what is not regarded even by Conservative Members as a decent living wage. That is his attitude of mind, but it is not the attitude of the persons elected by the ratepayers to deal with the poor as the ratepayers would like them to be dealt with. Knowing that the elected representatives in Govan would be more kind to the poor than people of the same mentality as his, he is endeavouring through this machinery to introduce into our administration the co-opted person who does not represent the mentality of the ratepayers. We object to that, and say that the people who spend the money should be responsible to the people who provide it, and should be under the necessity of coming to the ratepayers to explain the spirit in which they have spent the rates in order that the ratepayers may have an opportunity of expressing their satisfaction or otherwise with their administration of Poor Law relief.
It is a desperate situation, and one which should arouse not only the profound sympathy but the profound anxiety of the people of Scotland, to find that almost a quarter of a million of our population are submerged in social conditions in which they require relief from the rates. It is at this time, when Scotland is probably worse off than ever it was, when a greater amount of work has to be devoted to the proper administration of the assistance to be given to these people, that the Government are upsetting the machinery which, on the whole, is working more and more sympathetically towards the poor, and are replacing it by a mechanical system devoid of sentiment, but which will ex-press the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, who, in this House represents not the ratepayers, but the attitude of the rich towards their victims. We protest against all that. We want the people who spend our money to be under our control; we want our poor treated as the victims of society, and not as a mere criminal class. We do not want the children of our neighbours punished because we cannot find employment for their fathers; we do not want our unemployed men to be reduced to a lower standard of living because they have no means of earning their daily bread; we do not want the position of our working-class women to be made more terrible than it is in the ordinary course of their dairy lives. The whole of this machinery is directed to a mechanisation of the manner of dealing with them. It expresses a cruel spirit. We protest against that spirit and against the machinery which has been set up under this Bill to treat the poor worse in the future than they have been treated in the past.

Sir PATRICK FORD: I do not wish to pursue the right hon. Member who has just spoken in his vendetta against the Secretary of State for Scotland. I merely remark that the people of Scotland and the verdict of history will probably pronounce in favour of the Secretary of State for Scotland as the sounder and better friend of the poor. To come back to this Clause, apart from all these theories as to who are representing certain interests and who are alleged to represent certain others, the real point is, how are we to get efficient
administration. This ought to be a warning to any Government not to give too much away in granting co-opted members and committees to newly-devised county councils. The object of granting these co-opted committees is that in that way you may get expert knowledge of a certain kind brought to bear. A certain section of the Opposition, instead of taking that as a really well-intentioned desire to meet them, has used it as a lever to get the whole scheme of the Bill upset, and for all these purposes to have new elections and newly-elected members for specific purposes. The Government were perfectly right in yielding a point on that in the large county areas scattered in area, because it is area more than population that is really concerned.
Where, however, you get the large burgh, where it is perfectly easy to get about, it is quite unnecessary to have separately elected committees to deal with these matters. No good is to be gained by these separately elected committees in an area that can be perfectly easily traversed, as far as the geography of it goes. In order to get what is put forward as the personal touch with the individual poor, you are going to sacrifice the general knowledge of the whole situation of the district that can only be had by a man who has been elected and sits for that district as representing all the interests for which he is elected. That may be necessary where geographical conditions make it impossible for the county councillor to get about in the same way, but when you come to the burghs, to the districts where these geographical difficulties are removed, you are going to weaken the skill and knowledge which should be devoted to poor relief by handing it over to people specially elected for the purpose. I am not going to say that it would be throwing the door open to jobbery to do that, but the fewer local elections you have the better. Get the men and women elected who know the general situation, and do not hand over administration to specially elected bodies. Too many elections produce apathy among the electors. One of the hon. Members opposite has stated that it was not a fair test, because only so many people had come out to vote on a plebiscite on a certain point that was raised. The reason is that we have such
a multiplicity of these elections that we must come to the conclusion that we must have people elected for the general purposes of the district unless there is a geographical reason to the contrary, as in a scattered county district. It will not strengthen but will weaken the proper representation of the ratepayers and the

proper dealing with the poor if we are going to have specially elected committees. I strongly support the Government in resisting this Clause in the interests of the poor people themselves.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 115, Noes, 217.

Division No. 250.]
AYES.
[7.14 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stratford)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardle, George D.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barnes, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurjl


Barr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Bellamy, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Benn, Wedgwood
Hirst, G. H.
Shield, G. W.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hollins, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bondfield, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield. William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clarke, A. B.
Lowth, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Mackinder, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Compton, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cove, W. G.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Townend, A. E.


Day, Harry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


England, Colonel A.
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Forrest, W.
Morris, R. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Graham. Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.



Groves, T.
Ritson, J.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Albery, Irving James
Braithwaite Major A. N.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brass, Captain W.
Cooper, A. Duff


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cope, Major Sir William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Briggs, J. Harold
Couper, J. B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Atholl, Duchess of
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)


Atkinson, C.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank. Cpl. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Dalkeith. Earl of


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Bullock, Captain M.
Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burman, J. B.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cassels, J. D.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Berry, Sir George
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bethel, A.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Edmondson. Major A. J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bevan, S. J.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ellis, R. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Blundell, F. N.
Clayton, G. C.
Faile, Sir Bertram G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fermoy, Lord


Fielden, E. B.
Lamb, J. O.
Rye, F. G.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Salmon, Major I.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Loder, J. de V.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Looker, Herbert William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lougher, Sir Lewis
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lumley, L. R.
Savery, S. S.


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Gates, Percy
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Simms, Or. John M. (Co. Down)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Skelton, A. N.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Smithers, Waldron


Grant, Sir J. A.
Macquisten, F. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hammersley, S. S.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Harland, A.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Templeton, W. P.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. Sir K. P.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'd.)
Waddington, R.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Nuttall, Ellis
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hills, Major John Waller
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hilton, Cecil
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Perring, Sir William George
Watts, Sir Thomas


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wells, S. R.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Pilcher, G.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hunter-Weston Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Raine, Sir Walter
Withers. John James


Hurd, Percy A.
Ramsden, E.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hurst, Sir Gerald
Red, D. D. (County Down)
Wright, Brig-General W. D.


Iveagh, Countess of
Reiner, J. R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Roberts. Sir Samuel (Hereford)



Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Ropner, Major L.
Captain Margesson and Sir Victor Warrender.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.



Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not quite certain whether the next Clause on the Paper—(Methods of securing relief to occupiers)—standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) is in order. In fact, I am not quite certain what it means. If the hon. and gallant Member would like to explain what it means, I should be glad to near him.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Clause is an effort to assist the Government to accomplish the professed purpose of the proposals which they have put before the House. The effect of the Bill as at present drafted is to reduce the assessment in the case of the occupier from one quarter to one-eighth, and in the case of the owner from three-quarters to one-eighth. There are two strong objections to that. One is a mere matter of machinery; the other is a matter of principle. The matter of
machinery is that it involves the paying back by the landlord to the tenant of half of the landlord's relief. It is the same kind of machinery as was introduced into the 1923 Act and which was then found to be so unworkable that it had to be reversed in subsequent legislation which was passed by this House last year. The effect is, that the tenant comes along and pays rent, and he then claims back from the landlord half of the relief, whatever it may be, that the landlord may have received. If the estate spreads over different parishes, there will be some tenants in one parish claiming for one particular amount and other tenants in another parish having a totally different claim, while a third tenant may, after the 1st June of last year, have no claim at all. There will be three or four classes of tenant each paying in a different way causing immense difficulties and giving ground for
a large amount of misunderstanding. The 1923 difficulty was got over in the 1927 Act. The Clause which I have put down gets over that difficulty.
There is a much more important question. The Lord Advocate in defending the Government's proposals last week admitted quite frankly that they would have one effect. He admitted that they would have the effect of giving the greater part of the benefit of this rate relief to one partner in the industry. He said:
I do not want to argue at length the question of whether a benefit like this ultimately comes to the landlord or not. My humble view is that it certainly does, and I will tell the Committee why.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. and gallant Member does not quite do me justice. What I said was that an interesting time would arise when there was a new tenant.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Oh, yes, I do not want to misquote the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. SHINWELL: On a point of Order. May I ask what is before the House at this stage?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is trying to explain the meaning of his Clause.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The effect of the new Clause is that it definitely takes this landlord's relief, and instead of allowing it to filter back eventually as the Lord Advocate thinks it will—a good many hon. Members in this House with great authority behind them think it will not filter back to the tenant—and anchors it firmly to the tenant in the form of return of rent.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Member is in order in going into this question of rent. The question of rent is dealt with in Clause 41, and I think the question which he is now raising may be outside the scope of the Bill.

Sir A. SINCLAIR Although in form it deals with a question of rent, in fact this reduction of rent is merely the equivalent of the rating relief which is going to the landlord under the provisions of the Bill as it is now framed. It is merely a different way of giving the
same relief, but a way which anchors it permanently to the tenant and gives the full advantage which the Government profess to give and which the Government profess to believe will be given by their own method eventually.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member cares to move the Clause, I will accept the Motion.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Methods of Securing relief to occupiers.)

The rents of all agricultural lands and heritages payable at the time of the passing of the Act shall be deemed to be the standard rents of these subjects, and upon the passing of the Act these standard rents shall automatically be reduced by a sum equal to two and a-half times the rates payable by the proprietor in the first year of the operations of the Act, and such reduced standard rents shall continue to be the rents payable by the tenants and occupiers of the said agricultural lands and heritages thereafter until new rents have been fixed so far as small landholders or statutory small tenants are concerned by the Scottish Land Court under the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, and so far as other agricultural tenants are concerned by arbitration as provided in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923.—[Sir A. Sinclair.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to second the Motion.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I want, first of all, to protest against certain assertions or statements made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) with regard to certain statements of mine. I made it quite clear that, if the landowner is the permanent owner of the land and the tenant is only a temporary person, when that tenant goes the benefit goes to the landowner, but an interesing question arises whether, if another tenant comes along, he would get the benefit or not.

Mr. HARDIE: He gets it in his rent.

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is a question about which we do not agree. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the effect of his Clause. The effect of the Clause would be exactly the same as the effect of the Amendment
which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) wisely did not move on the Committee stage. The result would be to give full effect to the Socialist Amendment which we discussed in Committee of giving five times the rates payable by the proprietor in the first year of the operation of the Act. That would be the result of this Clause.

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 222.

Division No. 251.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, T.
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grundy, T. W.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barnes, A.
Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barr, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Bellamy, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shield, G. W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hollins, A.
Shinwell, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Clarke, A. B.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Strauss, E. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
MacLaren, Andrew
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Day, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Montague, Frederick
Westwood, J.


England. Colonel A.
Morris, R. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Forrest, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whizeley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wiggins, William Martin


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
and Mr. Ernest Brown.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool)
Potts, John S.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brass, Captain W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Albery, Irving James
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Briggs, J. Harold
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Briscoe, Richard George
Cooper, A. Duff


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cope, Major Sir William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Couper, J. B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Courtauld, Major J. S


Atholl, Duchess of
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Atkinson, C.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Croit, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bullock, Captain M.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Burman, J. B.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Burton. Colonel H. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Berry, Sir George
Cassels, J. D.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bethel, A.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Betterton. Henry B.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Sevan, S. J.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ellis, R. G.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset Weston-s.-M.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Chapman, Sir S.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Clayton, G. C.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fermoy, Lord


Fielden, E. B.
Little, Or. E. Graham
Ropner, Major L.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Loder, J. de V.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Looker, Herbert William
Rye, F. G.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lougher, Sir Lewis
Salmon, Major I.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lumley, L. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Gates, Percy
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gusteve D.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Savery, S. S.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
McLean, Major A.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macqulsten, F. A.
Skelton, A. N.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smithers, Waldron


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Margesson, Captain D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Spender-Clay, Colone H.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Storry-Deans, R.


Harland, A.
Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Styles. Captain H. Walter


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C
Sueter, Rear-Admin Murray Fraser


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Templeton, W. P.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Newman. Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Hills, Major John Waller
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. Sir K. P.


Hilton, Cecil
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Waddington, R.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'l'd.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nuttall, Ellis
Warner. Brigadier-General W. W.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Waterhouse. Captain Charles


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Perring, Sir William George
Wells, S. R.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
White, Lieut.-Col. Mr G. Dairymple


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Peto, G. (Somerset. Frome)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pilcher, G.
Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)


Hurst, Sir Gerald
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Iveagh, Countess of
Price, Major C. W. M.
Withers, John James


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Raine, Sir Walter
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ramsden, E.
Wright, Brig-General W. D.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Remer, J. R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)



Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lamb, J. Q.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Major the Marquess of Titchfield




and Sir Victor Warrender.

CLAUSE 2.—(Transfer of other functions to county councils.)

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out from the word "functions," in line 8, to the word "as," in line 9.
Owing to the way in which the Guillotine has worked during the discussion of the Bill the case of the small burghs has never been adequately discussed. This is the last opportunity that we may have while the Bill is in this House of considering the position of the small burghs under the provisions of the Bill. Under the Clause as it stands.
all the functions of the district committees of the districts within the county;
and
the functions of town councils of small burghs within the county as local authorities for the purposes of the statutory provisions
set out in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act
are to be transferred to and vested in the county council.
Under the Amendment which I am now proposing, and the consequential Amendment which also stands in my name in page 3, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
of town councils of such small burghs as within six months after the passing of this Act have not been able to satisfy the central authority as to their capacity to discharge these functions efficiently.
only those functions would be transferred of such councils of burghs as failed within six months of the passing of the Act to prove that they were efficient in the discharge of their duties. It has been admitted in the course of the Debate that the small burghs of
Scotland, as a rule, are not inefficient in the discharge of their duties. Great praise has been given to the small burghs for the very adequate way in which they have discharged their duties, and the Secretary of State must have realised by now, if he did not realise it when he brought in his Bill, the strong feeling that has been aroused throughout the small burghs by the very drastic methods which he has adopted in regard to them. He has given way to a very large extent, and a large number of the powers which he proposed in the first instance to take away from the small burghs, have been restored. There remain, however, the proposals in this Clause to take away the administration of 25 Acts of Parliament, which are mentioned in the First Schedule, which range from the Registration of Births, and the Land Valuation (Scotland) Act, down to the Food and Drugs Acts, which the small burghs have administered in the past.
It has been argued on the Government side that the main objects of the Bill are efficiency and economy. We who speak for the small burghs say: "Why do you deprive them of the administration of these Acts which they have proved in the past that they are efficient to administer." Nothing in this world is perfect, and we are prepared to admit that there may be certain small burghs which do not come up to the standard of the majority. In this Amendment, opportunity would be given to the Government to say, within six months of the passing of this Act, "You have not proved your efficiency in administering the Acts; you have failed to take advantage of the opportunities afforded to you. Therefore, we will transfer these powers from you, to the county." Unless a burgh has shown that it is inefficient in the discharge of these duties, the Government should not deprive that burgh of the opportunity of exercising those duties. I suppose there are few Members representing county constituencies who have not several small burghs, two, three, or four, in their constituencies, whose administration is an example of efficiency and economy. It is so in my constituency. We, on this side of the House, are very doubtful where the economy is coming under this Act. We are inclined to foresee that there will be increased expenditure in a great
many directions, and that if the administration of these matters, which has been in the hands of well-worked burghs in the past, is to be in the hands of the county councils, who have not the same interest in the administration that the burghs must have, we shall not get the same efficiency. Therefore, I ask the Government to give consideration to this Amendment, even at this later hour, so that a small remnant of their powers may be preserved to the small burghs of Scotland.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I beg to second the Amendment.
A great deal is to be said for burghs with a population of from 8,000 to 15,000 in respect of efficient local administration. There are three such burghs in my own constituency, and the administration leaves nothing to be desired; their general administration of the health services are a model for the rest of the country. They have the most up-to-date hospitals and health inspection, both on the medical and sanitation side; they have public baths, run on the most approved methods, and yet these go ahead burghs, which have administered their own affairs for hundreds of years, are to be drawn into a larger area of quite recent formation. I am satisfied that the administration is bound to Suffer. If I had had the drawing up of this Measure and wanted to create larger areas I should have built the larger areas around these burghs rather than incorporated these burghs in the areas. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will realise the hardship which will be caused by the proposals in this Bill. If he will accept the Amendment he will improve the Bill and also show some charity to these small burghs.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I have an Amendment on the Paper to insert the words:
other than Royal burghs and those coastal burghs having an estimated summer population of twenty thousand persons or over.
It covers the same point as the Amendment we are now discussing, and perhaps I may be allowed to discuss the two together.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment was covered by a new Clause which was negatived by the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: There is just one difference, and that is that in my Amendment I refer to the Royal burghs.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is true, but I think the hon. Member should argue his case on this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I only wish to put in a claim for the Royal burghs of Scotland. I have no justification to advance on their behalf on the ground of population, either summer or winter, but I plead on the grounds of sentiment which seems to have been lost in this early part of the 20th century. The Royal burghs of Scotland date back for hundreds of years. They have a tradition which is unequalled in Scottish history. They are the very basis on which Scottish history is formed. They have contributed to the education of Scottish people, and it is due to them that Scottish education is so widely famed throughout the world. I do not need to accentuate what has already been said in regard to the efficiency of civil administration in Scotland. That is well known to every visitor to Scotland who has had the misfortune to go into the hospitals which these Royal burghs provide or, has had the good fortune to visit the wide esplanades of the coastal towns. There are other reasons. In the small town of Saltcoats we have the largest swimming pool in Scotland; and it is true that these small burghs have shown much initiative and imagination in their civic administration. I feel that there is a point to be made in favour of the exclusion of the Royal burghs and many other small burghs which have shown their efficiency in local administration, and I hope that even at this late hour the Under-Secretary will accept some such proposal as this.

Mr. SHINWELL: Right throughout the discussions on this Bill I felt that there was some call for a change in local government in Scotland, but I never felt convinced in respect of the transfer of functions from small burghs to the county councils. I do not subscribe to the view that every small burgh in Scotland is efficient. Many of them are, but this at least can be said, that in the main they are much more efficient than county councils. We have no guarantee that county councils, which are to be entrusted with these wider functions, will
be more satisfactory in respect of the administration of health and other services than the small burghs, and without such a guarantee I suggest that there is no reason why the small burghs should be denuded of the powers which they possess. I am confronted by a difficulty in this matter which, perhaps, the Under-Secretary might be able to remove. It is now proposed to set up district councils, and, as I understand it, these bodies are to have from time to time duties which would otherwise fall on the county councils. Therefore, some district councils may have wider functions than others; it depends on circumstances.
The difficulty I see is this, that in the transfer of county council functions to district councils it may happen that some small burghs, as a result of the loss of functions, will have fewer functions to perform than the new district councils, and if that is the case, and I think it must be so, it will lead to the seining up of an anomaly that would be wholly unsatisfactory from the standpoint of local government administration in Scotland. That is, I think, a point of substance. At all events we are entitled to some information in respect to the possible variation in power as between small burghs under the new dispensation and the district councils as now constituted under the Bill. Let me say a word in regard to the most substantial argument advanced by the Under-Secretary of State and his friends in respect of the need for taking away certain functions from the small burghs. The argument was this, that for the purpose of the de-rating proposals, and on the ground of efficiency and because of the need for centralisation, it was essential to adopt this device. Let us see what substance there is in that argument. As far as the de-rating is concerned it cannot possibly affect the position of the small burghs in the new form, because if it did it would equally affect the position of the new district councils. The two cases are on all fours. Therefore, derating cannot be adduced as an argument in support of this proposal.
Take the question of centralisation. I accept the view that centralisation is, on the whole, more advantageous than the existence of a large number of units of a more or less efficient character. But, if centralisation is a good principle to introduce then clearly there was no occasion
for the establishment of district councils, because the establishment of district councils vitiates the principle of centralisation. As regards the question of efficiency, I submit there can be no gainsaying the fact that in respect of the major number of small burghs in Scotland no case has been made out against them on the ground of inefficiency. Hon. Members during the Debate have referred to their own constituencies. As regards the small burghs with which I am acquainted they appear to me to be quite efficient in respect of health services and general local administration, but of this I am quite certain, that there is no small burgh in the County of West Lothian which has not proved itself better than the County Council of West Lothian. I challenge contradiction on that point. For these reasons I submit that the Under-Secretary of State must make out a much more convincing case if we are to believe that there is need to transfer existing functions from small burghs to county councils.

8.0 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I might have some difficulty in meeting the point put to me by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) if what he has said were the plan and intention of the Government. We have altogether failed to describe the scheme to the hon. Member if he still visualises it as the transfer of functions from burghs to county councils. What is proposed is something quite different. We are proposing to set up a joint authority of burghal and county-authorities, on which urban authorities are to be represented as well as the landward areas. That is the fundamental thing for the House to grasp at this stage. We are not seeking to transfer the powers to be taken out of the hands of the burghs and given into the hands of the county councils. We are seeking to set up a new body which shall be both burghal and county, and which shall exercise the functions of the major health services.

Mr. SHINWELL: I find it rather difficult to apprehend the meaning of this. May I direct the attention of the Under-Secretary to the First Schedule in which the language is clear and unmistakable:
Statutory provisions regarding functions of town councils of small burghs transferred to county councils.
That surely means what it says.

Major ELLIOT: If the hon. Member will look further and see the definition of the county council, or see the figures for the reconstituted county council, he will grasp the fact that in the County of Selkirk, for instance, there are seven representatives of the large ward division and 17 representatives from the small burghs. The hon. Member can ask himself whether in that case we are transferring the functions of the burgh to the county council. One might say that we are transferring the functions of the county council to the small burghs instead. Therefore, we sweep away that argument altogether. We are discussing now whether or not a new joint authority, county and burghal, shall be set up to exercise functions in Scotland over a wider field than hitherto.
I am asked to substantiate the claim which the Government are putting forward to have this Clause to-night. I was asked in what way the Government accused the small burghs or convicted them of inefficiency, and I am asked by the Amendment being discussed to undertake the invidious position of holding a drumhead court-martial and sentencing the defaulters to be led out and shot at dawn. We are not considering that question from that angle at all. We are considering the question whether the major health services of Scotland could be more efficiently administered in a smaller area or in a wider one. That is the question, not the condemnation of the burghs or the county councils. The question is whether the merging of the county and the local administration will provide a more efficient service for Scotland in the future than in the past. On that, I have a wealth of evidence which has been examined and considered by one Committee after another, and which has been reported on by almost every Committee which has been set up upon it in absolutely unmistakeable terms. Committee after Committee have reported urgently that the wider area of health services would be for the good of Scotland as a whole. I do not need to repeat again the report of the consultative council set up to consider this very point, a report which had
the most authoritative representatives upon it from the hon. Member's own party. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart), my predecessor in this post, the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan)—

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Member for a change and to relieve the monotony find something more substantial.

Major ELLIOT: I have not the contempt the hon. Member opposite has for these hon. Members of his own party. As Under-Secretary for Health, he must allow me to rely on the opinion of another Under-Secretary of Health from the hon. Member's own party. I will go to another Report. Seeing that we are dealing with the Liberal party's Amendment, I will go to the Report which covers the Highlands and Islands. It is the Report of an authoritative Committee presided over by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education with a representative of the Liberals upon it and a friend of my own, Dr. Donald Murray, former Member for the Western Isles. I will ask the hon. Member to consider the opinion of the ex-Member for the Western Isles. He recommends:
For the major health services the area of administration in the Highlands and Islands should be the county, and that no burgh within the islands should constitute an entirely separate area with administration of the major health services.
I think we are entitled to call the attention of hon. Members opposite to this expression of opinion of one of their own party, a Member from the region for which many of them sit. The Report also dealt with the local authority for the administration of the health services. The Secretary of State for Scotland in his original draft included water, drainage, sewage, and housing within the functions of the county, but this Committee suggested that these functions would be better left to the smaller local authorities. The health scheme which we have brought in now is in close correspondence with the recommendations made by that Committee, and quite independently of the other Committee which considered the health areas,
and came to the findings that I have recently given to the House What more remains to be said? It is this, that we are asking neither the burgh nor the county to abandon its functions, but to come together in a new health authority covering a wide area. The hon. Member for St. Rollox will in no way want to go back on the Report to which he gave his signature. In health services, he has never hesitated to affirm that he stands to-day by the position which he then took up. We differ on the question of the Poor Law, but on the question of the health services I think I have his support.
I would ask my friends of the Liberal party whether they really desire to press this Amendment, and to say that the position of the burghs of Scotland is to be gone over, and that they are to be looked at one after the other as a schoolmaster would mark the exercise books of the children in his school. We ask them to accept the finding of so many authoritative bodies that the wider area for the major health services will be an advantage to the country as a whole. We ask them to say that the burghs will lead in this as in the past, and will be able themselves to continue that lead in a wider area which they have given in the narrower sphere. We agree that the burghs of Scotland have been the centres of education and progress in all manner of ways, but times have moved, and we must move with them. In old days, the burgh street was the only decent road in the countryside. Hon. Members will remember the ride of Tam o'Shanter and the kind of road followed to Alloway Kirk. The burgh police who watched within the walls of the burgh formed the only police system, and the man who was outside the gates at sundown took his own chance and carried his life in his hands. In matters of the administration of health, all these things were confined within the walled towns, which were the only strongholds of culture in mediaeval ages. But now only an imaginary line marks the boundaries. It is possible for us to consider the services in all these respects for a wider area. It is for us to realise that the road runs out from burgh to county and that the ambulance follows the road to where the sick man is collected, whether in the
burgh or county, and it is for us to ensure that the fullest possible use is made of these services. It is not because I do not recognise the transcendent services rendered by the burghs, but because I see an opportunity now for the burghs to extend these services—an opportunity that is open to the House to-night—that I ask the House to accept this Clause.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: With his usual brilliance the Under-Secretary of State has appealed to us not to press this Amendment to a Division. He has quoted in support of that appeal the opinions of certain eminent authorities and committees. But we should be much more inclined to listen to an appeal based upon the opinions of those committees and authorities if the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself would pay attention to the recommendations of the authorities that he commends to us as our guides. I marvel at his audacity, for example, in referring to the committee presided over by the Noble Lady, the hon. Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl). We know perfectly well that that same committee strongly and categorically recommended, as an essential feature of the local government of Scotland, the retention of parish councils. That recommendation the Under-Secretary sweeps aside as not worthy of consideration. Yet he appeals to us to consider the committee's recommendations with regard to health services. This Bill is not concerned only with health services; they are not the only matters which are being handed over to the new authorities. The Under-Secretary devoted the whole of his speech to health services. I hold here the Bill, and in the first Schedule I find a list of the statutory provisions regarding the functions of town councils of small burghs, which are to be transferred to county councils. I find 25 Acts in the list, including such essentially local matters as the town planning of the burghs. Those 25 Acts, or most of them, have nothing to do with health services.
The Under-Secretary has indulged in the tactics, which he carries out so well, of ridiculing and travesting the Amendment. He talks about a drumhead court martial to which he would have to submit all the burghs of Scotland, and of giving them marks for their efficiency, like the marks awarded to school child
ren for success in their studies. But that was a mere travesty of the Amendment. The Scottish Board of Health, are, we believe, in close touch with all these burghs. They know where there is one which is not efficient, and they would be perfectly able to deal with it without any special drumhead court-martial inquiry. Very few burghs would it be necessary to deprive of their powers. If it is an impossible task to decide whether a few authorities are efficient or not, how is it possible for the Ministry to decide when it comes to the question of withholding a grant for inefficiency? In both cases exactly the same inquiry will have to be made.
I say frankly that I do not like this Bill, and I shall not like it even if the Amendment be accepted. I do not say that the Amendment will cure the defects of the Bill. The Amendment is by no means an ideal one. I do not like this cast-iron standard of efficiency which is to be laid down by bureaucrats in Edinburgh. I agree with the Under-Secretary that there should be wider areas for health services, but those wider areas can be obtained by force of public opinion and by free discussions based on experience over a course of years. That is the true method of reform, the true method of advancing and of raising the standard of civilisation in Scotland—free discussion on the platform and in the Press, free argument, the education of people so that they understand arguments, and learning by experience. But the Under-Secretary demands a criterion of efficieny, a cast-iron standard. Why take away from the burghs which are willing to combine for health services, and are doing it voluntarily, the powers which they are exercising in the way that the Minister wishes them to exercise them? The Government ought to accept the Amendment. They ought to like it better than I do. It is a bridge to meet them. Having regard to the great records of the burghs and the splendid services that they are rendering to the people of Scotland now, the Government ought to welcome the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: The references by the Under-Secretary of State to the historical safety of Scotland makes some of us feel that there is a lack of relation somewhere; but the poem which he quoted
was rather against what he said, because it did not deal with difficulties and dangers that could be controlled by a county. Those difficulties were "ghaists" and witches. The whole purpose of the poem was to draw people's attention to what was meant by a pledge, and the buying of pledges. The references in the poem are all against the Under-Secretary's own arguments. This Amendment seems to improve the Clause. The transfer of these functions is a matter which has not been fully considered. There has been a lot of talk about it for many years, but you can talk for years about a subject, and unless you have some accurate information, it does not follow that you are going to do the right thing. Had this subject been properly sifted and dealt with we would have some definite result to-day, but, as it is, the answer which we get from the other side shows that even the officials themselves have not tried to find out exactly what are these difficulties.
There is not that evidence which would show to anyone who wanted to deal fairly

with administration the necessity for the changes which are to be brought about under Clause 2. It relates to the transfer of functions some of which are as old in practice, if not in legal form, as the "auld brig" in the poem where the gray mare lost its tail. This is not a case merely of transforming something like a new system. Here you are proposing to transfer something which is part of the life of the people, and I claim that sufficient investigation has not been made of the proposal. When we go back to our constituencies and visit various places throughout the country, we find that the more the people learn of these proposals, the more bitter they become against the Bill, because they have the sense that, not only is a certain amount of freedom being taken away from them, but also a certain amount of the local right which they possessed in the past.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out" stand part of the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes, 181: Noes, 93.

Division No. 252.]
AYES.
[8.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hills, Major John Waller


Albery, Irving James
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hilton, Cecil


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Couper, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nan.)


Atholl. Duchess of
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Atkinson, C.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bethel, A.
Davies, Or. Vernon
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Betterton. Henry B.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hurd, Percy A.


Bevan, S. J.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurst, Sir Gerald


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Iveagh, Countess of


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Ellis, R. G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Blundell, F. N.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fermoy, Lord
Lamb, J. O.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Brass, Captain W.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Loder, J. de V.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Looker, Herbert William


Brittain, Sir Harry
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lougher, Sir Lewis


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gates, Percy
Lumley, L. R.


Broun-Lindsey, Major H.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brown. Brig-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Graham, Fergue (Cumberland, N.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bullock, Captain M.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
McLean, Major A.


Burman, J. B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Macquisten, F. A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Grotrian, H. Brent
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hanbury, C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cassels, J. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Margesson, Captain D.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harland, A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton
Harrison, G. J. C.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Chapman, Sir S.
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Henderson, Lieut.- Col. Sir Vivian
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Clayton, G. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Herbert, S. (York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Nelson, Sir Frank
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Waddington, R.


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Savery, S. S.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Nuttall, Ellis
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Skelton, A. N.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Perring, Sir William George
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Smithers, Waldron
Watts, Sir Thomas


Pilcher, G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wells, S. R.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Raine, Sir Walter
Stony-Deans, R.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ramsden, E.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Withers, John James


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wright, Brig-General W. D.


Robinson, Sir T. (Lance., Stretford)
Templeton, W. P.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Ropner, Major L.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Thomson, Sir Frederick



Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rye, F. G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Major Sir William Cope and


Salmon, Major I.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Captain Wallace.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. Sir K. P.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Groves, T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Grundy, T. W.
Shinwell, E.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bellamy, A.
Hardle, George D.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Benn, Wedgwood
Harris, Percy A.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Hollins, A.
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Strauss, E. A.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Clarke, A. B.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Townend, A. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawrence, Susan
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Westwood, J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Mackinder, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wiggins, William Martin


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Maxton, James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


England, Colonel A.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Forrest, W.
Murnin, H.
Windsor, Walter


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gibbins, Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison




and Major Owen.

CLAUSE 3.—(Transfer of functions of education authorities and of functions relating to police, and registration of electors.)

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison)—in page 5, line 6, at the end to insert the words:
Provided also that no person who at a date immediately prior to the commencement of this Act holds the office of chief constable of a burgh shall be deprived of his office save on payment of a sum sufficient to secure him against pecuniary loss.
—would create a charge and is, therefore, not in order.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: On a point of Order. I think that, as these chief constables are paid out of the rates, there would be no additional expense, even though my Amendment were accepted.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The words are:
Provided also that no person who at a date immediately prior to the commencement of this Act holds the office of chief constable of a burgh shall be deprived of his office save on payment of a sum sufficient to secure him against pecuniary loss.
Therefore, there would be a charge in respect of the outgoing chief constable, which would be a charge on the rates, and that it is not possible to do on the Report stage.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: The point I wish to make is that at present powers are taken in the Bill to remunerate these people for loss of office, and, therefore, this will simply define the amount of compensation which is already allowed in the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If it defines, it may increase beyond the powers of the Bill. It is a rule of the House that you may not put anything on to the rates on the Report stage of a Bill, and there is no doubt that this, at any rate, might do that.

CLAUSE 6.—(Transfer of property and liabilities of transferor authorities.)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, to leave out the word "Board," and to insert instead thereof the words "Department of Health."
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: In supporting the Secretary of State for Scotland, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to read a letter which I have received from the chief of the health department of the city of Glasgow. It is from the head of a certain school in Glasgow, but I am not permitted to give his name. He has been able to give definite impressions of his experience in connection with the children previously residing in slum areas under his charge. There are now 140 children formerly residing in the worst parts of Anderston and Gorbals, and the schoolmaster's impressions of one year's experience are these:
Prior to the introduction of the rehoused population, the original inhabitants of the district consisted mainly of a good working-class population. The first effect of the introduction of the scholars into the school from the re-housed population was to cause a definite manifestation of snobbery on the part of the original residents. One lady assured him that it was a disgraceful thing that we of the middle classes have to allow our children to mix with such riff raff, and she considered that some protest should be made. In another instance the schoolmaster heard a mother who resided in one of the original tenements—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that the expression "Board" here is really the same as the "Department of Health." Therefore, it is only a matter of drafting, and I do not see how any argument can arise on the Amendment,
which is only to bring the Bill up to date. The word "Board" has been put in apparently by error, and so has to be changed, but there is no change in effect. Therefore, I do not see how an argument can arise.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, but I thought I would probably be in order. I consulted the great legal luminaries of the House on this matter before I rose, and they told me it would be quite in order, owing to the fact that the word "Board" was being changed to the words "Department of Health," as this matter would come under the Health Department. If you say I am not in order I will not press it, but I am just about finishing.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What was called the Board is now called the Department of Health. That is only a change bringing the Bill up to date, and it is really making no alteration in effect at all. Therefore, no argument can arise on it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Transfer of officers and superannuation funds.)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 11, line 1, to leave out paragraph (f).
This paragraph was put in originally to meet certain representations from local authorities, but since it was inserted we have received representations from the National Association of Local Government Officers, who have particularly asked that it should he deleted, and the Government, on reconsideration, have decided so to do.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if it will be in order for me to proceed row?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must first see what it is that paragraph (f) does. I will consider the affect of paragraph (f), and, if the hon. Member will connect his argument with it, I shall be glad to hear it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: My point is that the Secretary of State has been giving away something to officials. I am interested at the moment in the poor, down-trodden working class. It is the only class in which I am interested.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have looked at paragraph (f) which says that the provisions of a certain paragraph of the Schedule shall apply only in the case of a person who was in the full-time employment of a local authority or held two or more offices under two or more local authorities. It seems to me that the paragraph applies only to certain officials, and, therefore, I do not understand how any argument such as the hon. Member was proposing to put could come in on this Amendment, though I dare say it would be in order on the Third Reading.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will abide by your Ruling.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Reconstitution of county councils.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. WESTWOOD:
In page 12, line 31, to leave out the word 'representing,' and to insert instead thereof the words 'elected for.'
In line 38, to leave out paragraph (c).

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) appear to be incomplete, because they make no provision as to the manner in which the members are to be elected, and, therefore, Mr. Speaker could not see his way to select them.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. E. BROWN:
In page 13, line 23, to leave out the voids "a newspaper" and to insert instead thereof the word "newspapers.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) appears to be unnecessary. If he can show that there is some point of substance in it, I shall be glad to hear him.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am glad to hear that this Amendment is unnecessary. As Sub-section (4) reads at present, for the purpose of the reconstitution of county councils and determining the number of county councillors the Secretary of
State is empowered to do certain things by Order. Before he makes the Order he is to cause a local inquiry to be held in certain cases, and when the order is made it is to be published in the "Edinburgh Gazette" and in a newspaper circulating in the area to which it relates. If publication is to be confined to the "Edinburgh Gazette" and a single newspaper, I desire to move my Amendment, with the object of securing that there shall be publication in more than one newspaper. If the Lord Advocate tells me that the drafting of the Subsection gives me what I want, then there is no need to amend it, but unless the words of the Sub-section have some technical and legal meaning they seem to me to limit the publication to one other newspaper beside the "Edinburgh Gazette," and if that be so I do not think the Order will have the publicity which is necessary.
Clause 8 does very wide things. It makes drastic changes in the constitution and the election of county councils and confers on the Secretary of State important powers as to determining the number of county councillors for a county, apportioning them between the landward area and the burghs, and determining the contents and boundaries of electoral divisions. If the Lord Advocate tolls me that what I want is covered by the terms of the Sub-section I have no more to say, but according to my reading of the Sub-section it is, to use the word of a late Cabinet Minister, "definitive" to say that publication is to be made only in the "Edinburgh Gazette" and one newspaper. In many places people take only one newspaper and would not have any knowledge of the proposed change.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that point might be made.

Mr. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, to leave out the words "a newspaper" and to insert instead thereof the word "newspapers."

The LORD ADVOCATE: My answer to the hon. Member is that his Amendment does not make twopenny worth of difference, because under the Interpretation Act of 1889 where it is in the plural it includes the singular, and where it is in the singular it includes the plural.

Mr. SHINWELL: I think that is a most inadequate reply, and that we are entitled to further elucidation of the point raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to issue an Order, he may regard it as quite sufficient for his purposes to insert an advertisement in either the "Scotsman" or the "Glasgow Herald" newspapers. Both those newspapers circulate in practically the whole of Scotland, and that, no doubt, would be regarded as adequate, but, in my submission, it is very far from being adequate. Publicity ought to be given to the proposed Order in the local newspapers circulating in the areas concerned. That is a perfectly reasonable proposal. The Lord Advocate may say that if an announcement appears in the "Edinburgh Gazette" and, for example, the "Scotsman" newspaper, all persons interested would be informed; but that may not follow, because they may not make themselves acquainted with all that appears in the "Edinburgh Gazette." I do not know of anybody who does read the "Edinburgh Gazette." I have no acquaintance with the periodical.

Mr. BROWN: If it were in the "Evening News" they would read it.

Mr. SHINWELL: The "Scotsman" and the "Glasgow Herald" are both excellent newspapers from the point of view of publicity, but publication in them would be insufficient from the standpoint of the publicity required for such Orders as are contemplated. My last point is this. I think it will be conceded, even by those on the Treasury Bench, that there are many points arising out of this Sub-section which are involved and require much elucidation. We do not want to circumscribe publicity in the manner which is proposed in this Clause, because in my judgment that would be a disadvantage. For these reasons, I

hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to make the necessary change. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us the assurance that publicity will be accorded in respect of local newspapers. I quite appreciate the point that in this case the singular includes the plural, but does it refer to the leading newspapers as well as to the various local newspapers?

Sir R. HAMILTON: May I point out that the words in Clause 14, Sub-section (8), are
shall publish in one or more newspapers." Why not retain the same words in this case?

Mr. STEPHEN: In the past a proposal of this kind has been taken to mean cither the "Scotsman" or the "Glasgow Herald," and very often the local papers have been lost sight of. Suppose the advertisement to be published related to something connected with Leith. If an extension was made beyond the "Scotsman" it might be the "Evening News." I look at this matter from another point of view. I suggest that you should take a paper like the "Labour Standard," which is the best paper circulating in the Edinburgh districts of North and South Midlothian. It is obvious to anyone acquainted with newspapers that the Labour weekly newspaper is the brightest and most interesting newspaper circulating in those districts. If there is to be any advertisement relating to matters connected with the district I have mentioned, I hope that the "Edinburgh Labour Standard" will be duly noted, and then the advertisement will be brought to the notice of a wide circle of people who will be glad to read it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided Ayes, 171; Noes, 87.

Division No. 253.]
AYES.
[8.59 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bevan, S. J.
Brooke, Brigadler-General C. R. I.


Albery, Irving James
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Blundell, F. N.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Boothby, R. J. G.
Brown. Brig.-Gen H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Atkinson, C.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Bullock Captain M.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Burman, J. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brail, Captain W.
Carver, Major W. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cassels, J. D.


Berry, Sir George
Briggs, J. Harold
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Bethel, A.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Betterton, Henry B.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Raine, Sir Walter


Charteris, Brigadier, General J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ramsden, E.


Clayton, g. C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ropner, Major L.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hudson, R. S. (Cumbert'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rye, F. G.


Couper, J. B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Salmon, Major I.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandtworth, Cen'l)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Savery, S. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lamb, J. Q.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Loder, J. de V.
Smithers, Waldron


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Looker, Herbert William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lougher, Sir Lewis
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Ellis, R. G.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Storry-Deans, R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cethcert)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Foster, Sir Harry S.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McLean, Major A.
Templeton, W. P.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macquisten, F. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. Sir K. P.


Gates, Percy
Margesson, Captain D.
Waddington, R.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Grant. Sir J. A.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hanbury, C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Watts, Sir Thomas


Harland, A.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wells, S. R.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Withers, John James


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wright, Brig-General W. D.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Nuttall, Ellis
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Perring, Sir William George



Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hills, Major John Waller
Pilcher, G.
Major Sir William Cope and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.


Hilton, Cecil
Price, Major C. W. M.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shinwell, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardle, George D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Burr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bellamy, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Benn, Wedgwood
Hollins, A.
Snell, Harry


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stamford, T. W.


Bondfield, Margaret
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, E. A.


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee. F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Clarke, A. B.
Lowth, T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lunn, William
Westwood, J.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Mackinder, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Compton, Joseph
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Whiteley, W.


Cove, W. G.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wiggins, William Martin


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish universities)
Maxton, James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Duncan, C.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murnin, H.
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Granted, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingeley
Potts, John S.
Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
and Major Owen.


Grundy, T. W.
Scrymgeour, E.



Question put, and agreed to.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, after the word "newspaper," to insert the words "published or."
This is to indicate that, if there is a local newspaper in the district, notice of the scheme that is required to be published shall be published in that local newspaper.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 24, at the end, to insert the words:
(5) Section 51 of the Act of 1889 (which relates to alteration of the number of county councillors and of boundaries, etc.) shall have effect as if after the words 'town council,' there were inserted the words 'or of a majority of the members of a county council elected for the landward area.'
In Section 51 of the Local Government Act, 1889, it was laid down that, after the machinery of the new Act had once got going, there might be an application for alteration, for instance, of the number of county councillors, boundaries, and so on, and that application could be at the instance either of the county council or of a town council which was within the county for any purpose. I made some reference to this matter during the Committee stage. It seemed to us fair that the landward members of the county council should also have the chance, if they thought that the balance of representation was a bit unfair to them, to make an application at their own hand, and I said then that I proposed to put down an Amendment to give to that third interest the power to make such an application. This Amendment secures that by putting in, in addition to the words
county council and town council,
the words
or of a majority of the members of a county council elected for the landward area.
I notice that there is an Amendment, if I may refer to it, which seeks to insert, before these words, the words
representing the burghs.
A town council itself has the right to make an application under Section 51, and to put in these words does not seem to add anything very material. If the Government Amendment be agreed to, the three parties who can make such an
application will be, first, the county council; secondly, any town council within the county for any purpose; and, thirdly, a majority of the members representing the landward area of the county. That seems to cover the ground completely.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I ask him how he can argue that the second party referred to can possibly be in the same fair position, shall I say, as the landward members, since the second party is merely a separate burgh?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As the Lord Advocate has already spoken, I do not think he would be in order in speaking again.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I think, Sir, that that was really an interruption; I had not quite concluded. Under the Bill, the town council are the people who nominate representatives to serve on the county council, and any town council separately will be entitled to make an application of the kind suggested. They, of course, represent the interests of the small burghs in the county, and each small burgh council by itself may make an application. It is not necessary that all the town councils, or even a majority of them, should act together; any town council can do it. As regards the rest, namely, the representatives of the landward areas, it seemed to me fair to say that a simple majority of the landward members should be entitled to make such an application. That would secure consideration for any substantial body of opinion that might think that an alteration was due. The third body that can make the application is, as I mentioned at first, the county council itself, that is to say, the whole body.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate if it is not rather complicating matters to create this new body inside the newly constituted authority? The newly constituted authority will consist of the members elected for the landward areas and the councillors nominated from the burghs within the county. Under the Act of 1889, either the county council or the town council of any burgh which will now be included—I understood the Lord Advocate to say that—

The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, but not the representatives of the town council.

Sir R. HAMILTON: No; the town council of any burgh included within the county will have the right to make representations to the Secretary of State. I should like to ask what is really the object of creating this third body, namely, the majority of the landward members. If it is desired to get the new authority working together as one body, it would seem to me to be a pity to insert this third body. If I have understood the Lord Advocate aright, the majority of this third body of landward members will have the right to make representations independently to the Secretary of State on any matters with which Clause 51 deals.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The town councils now have that right.

Sir R. HAMILTON: The town councils have the right, and the county council has the right. Why create this new body, which is a portion of the county council?

The LORD ADVOCATE: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might answer that question. The newly constituted county council will consist partly of representatives of the landward areas, and partly of representatives of the small burghs. The persons who can apply, under Section 51 of the Act of 1889 as it now stands, are either the whole body, consisting both of the landward members and of the representatives of the burghs, or only a section of it, namely, the town councils. That section can now apply independently of the whole body, but the other section, the representatives of the landward areas, cannot, and we thought that the landward section, who, if they were in a minority on the county council, might otherwise suffer an injustice, should in fairness be allowed to apply just as the town councils can. It is not a third body; it is the other half, and, really, I cannot see that the matter admits of any argument. Although there may be matters affecting the landward areas very intimately, at present an application can only be made either by the county council as a whole or by one section of the county council, and what we want to do is to give to the other section of the county council the right also to go at their own hand. Surely, that
is only fair, and I cannot see why it should be spoken of as creating a third body.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am sorry that the Lord Advocate has suggested that this matter is incapable of argument, because that shows that his mind is definitely made up, although he has not heard the other side of the case. One county council which I have in mind, dominated by a majority of representatives from the landward areas, is already approaching the Secretary of State complaining about the representation he has given to the burghs. Under the proposal before us there can be no collective appeal by the representatives of the burghs, or the county council either, to reduce or increase, as the case may be, the representation which finally will be given so far as the constitution of these county councils is concerned. The lord Advocate has made it quite clear that a single burgh will have a right to appeal, not for an increase of the burgh representation but for an increase of its own representation.

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, the right of the burgh to appeal is with regard to the representation of the whole county. Under Section 51, the application is not to increase the particular representation, but to reconsider the whole distribution of the representation in the total area. The hon. Member has given a very useful illustration. He takes a case where the representatives of the landward area are going to be in a majority. It does not need the whole of them to act together. One alone can apply to have the whole electoral distribution of the county council area reconsidered. The landward area's representatives in the opposite case, where the burghs are controlling the county council and are in a great majority, even if they are unanimous, cannot make an application under present conditions. We say it is unfair that in the one case a minority can make the application and that in the other case they cannot. They are not even as well off as the braghal areas, because they have to get a majority under this, whereas a single one can make a representation. That is why it is to me quite unarguable.

Mr. WESTWOOD: It may have been density on our part or lack of lucidity
on the part of the Lord Advocate on the first occasion, but the Lord Advocate did not give us as clear an exposition of what is meant on the first occasion as he has given now. It was lack of clearness on the first occasion that led me to the impression that a single burgh could only make an application on its own behalf. The further explanation that a single burgh can make representations for a complete change in the personnel so far as the whole of the burghs' representation is concerned certainly makes the position far clearer, and I think it is quite a fair suggestion that landward members should be in the same position as burgh members for the purpose of making representations.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: Will the Lord Advocate say to whom the application is to be made for a reduction of the burgh representation?

The LORD ADVOCATE: To the Secretary of State.

Mr. WATSON: Not to the county council?

The LORD ADVOCATE: No.

Mr. SHINWELL: I cannot understand why the Lord Advocate did not adopt another expedient in order to meet the difficult position as it concerns the landward members of the county council. He has proposed, and we have been compelled to accept, the constitution of the district councils which are to undertake functions on behalf of the county council. Why not leave it to the district councils to make individual representations in respect of changes in the boundaries and in the number of members who are to serve on the county council? Then we shall have this position, that the burgh council can make representations, and equally the district council, representing a small section of the landward area, can make representations also. That would be a fair position, but the proposal the right hon. Gentleman makes—I take no exception to the fairness of it—seems to me to create an anomaly which it is desirable to avoid. My own view is that it would have been very much better to give the district councils similar powers to those at present held by the burgh councils, namely, of making application to the Secretary of State in the event of new
boundaries being required and new membership having to be called for for the county council.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (5) and to insert instead thereof the words:
(5) No councillor representing a small burgh shall be entitled to exercise a deliberative vote in respect of any matter relating solely to the exercise of any function which the county council is not entitled to exercise within the burgh;
(6) No councillor representing a large burgh shall be entitled to exercise a deliberative vote except in respect of any matter relating solely to a function which the county council is entitled to exercise within the burgh.
We had some discussion on this matter in. Committee, and there was general agreement that the words of the old Act were not satisfactory, and I felt that even the words we got in Committee were not altogether satisfactory. I hope the House will be able to agree that we have found a clearer basis. I hope to satisfy them at any rate that the new basis is a very clear one. May I explain it as it appears to me? The two classes of members of the county council which we are considering here are first of all, those who represent the small burghs, and, secondly, those who represent the large burghs, and one of the topics in which one is particularly interested is the question of Standing Orders, for instance, and the Chairmanship. The interest of the large burghs in the council's business will really be very small. It may be in education or police, and that not in all cases, that they have representation. On the other hand, the interest of the small burghs is proportionately very much larger. We thought the fairest and most correct way would be to approach the right to vote of these two classes of representatives from exactly the opposite angle. The effect of what we have prescribed in these two new Sub-sections is that a person representing a small burgh is entitled to a deliberative vote on everything, prima facie, unless the person challenging can say to him, "The business on which you are going to exercise your deliberative vote is concerned with the landward areas and nothing else." In effect, that is what it comes to. That means that he could vote on the Standing Orders, or on the
election of the Chairman, or of the officials whose services are used generally by the county council. Then, with regard to the representatives of the large burghs, we approached it entirely from the opposite angle, and the new Subsection (6) prescribes that he is not to exercise a deliberative vote except in respect of a matter which relates solely to the exercise of a function which is exerciseable within a large burgh. In other words, the moment you get a taint of any county matter, then he is excluded, even though the large burgh is interested. The result of that, of course, is that while under the other Clause a person residing in a large burgh will be qualified to become a Convener, if they choose to elect him, the representatives of a large burgh will not be able to weigh in with their large battalions and cast a deliberative vote on such a question as Standing Orders. I suggest it is not a very easy problem to define, and the words we have discovered, particularly the words beginning "solely", are the most satisfactory method that we can find. On the whole it does deal fairly with the difference in the representation of large and small burghs in these matters, and I hope the House will be ready to adopt our suggestion.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would like to have an assurance from the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate that, in considering this rather difficult problem they have consulted with the people who have to carry out the administration. What is the view generally held by county councils regarding what will happen at a meeting convened to be carried out under these provisions? You will bring these people, in a widely scattered county, distances of 40 or 50 miles, and they will sit down together at a meeting where there will be three distinct and separate voting powers. You have the county councillor who is the representative of the landlord area and who has very comprehensive voting powers; then you have the representatives of the large burghs, who have less voting powers, and then you have representatives of the small burghs, who have still less voting powers. Surely there will be a perpetual wrangle at that meeting as to whether No. 2 is to go in or No. 3 is to go down. I speak seriously of this, because I have had some experience of it on the county
council of Lanark, and I know it does not work. We had to abandon it in disgust. We had representatives of a Government Department sitting on the district committee and we had to carry on our business, I suppose illegally, by allowing all these people, for mere purposes of convenience, to participate in the whole of the business which came before our meeting.
Common sense will tell you that it is a most complicated procedure to carry out in practice, and I hope the Government will not, without serious consideration and consultation with the authorities, saddle them with a procedure of this kind. I am not speaking in a hostile manner or suggesting any alternative. I know right hon. Gentlemen themselves must recognise what a difficult scheme it is in actual practice. Remember that these people will have been brought a considerable distance and may have a very limited period in which to get through their deliberations, with a lot of business to transact. I wish a more simple method could have been devised, and I am quite sure that if those on the front Bench had put their minds to it, they could have devised a simpler method.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am sure that this, like the previous Amendment, will require some further explanation particularly as regards the part which deals with the representation or voting powers of the representatives of the large burghs. They are to have a vote solely on those functions which the county council is entitled to exercise within a burgh. Would they have a vote, for instance, on the chairmanship of the county council, or would they have the right to vote for the finance convener or any of the other conveners? We have to keep the fact in mind that the rates which are to be collected now by the county have to go into a common pool. There will be a stand on the part of the respective conveners as to how the money is to be spent. Take the problem of education, which up to the present has been a separate problem as far as the collection of rates is concerned. Under this new scheme, there will be a fight for the money that is to be collected which comes into that pool from the ratepayer's pocket. The result will be, that while the representatives from the large burghs are only directly interested in connection with education, they will be indirectly interested in the expenditure of
all services of the county council, owing to the fact that the more money that is spent in connection with certain health services or other services which the county council have got to administer, the less money will there be for education. Consequently, every representative from a large burgh will be as much interested in the appointment of the finance convener and the conveners of the other committees, as he will be interested in the convener of the education committees.
I can see many problems arising in connection with the limiting of the voting powers of representatives, particularly of the large burgh, because they are only to have a vote on those functions solely exercised by a county council within their respective burghs. The chairmanship, for instance, is not a matter that is solely exercised within the burgh, nor is the appointment of the finance convener something that solely affects the large burgh itself. Consequently, I think we are entitled to have some further explanation from the Lord Advocate. I hope he will make it as clear to us that this Amendment is in the interest of fair play and justice to all parties as he did in connection with the previous Amendment. I am afraid that is going to be a far more difficult job, realising that the rates are going into the common pool, and that there will be a general scramble for the allocation of that money. I am afraid that in this representation of the large burghs, which are only interested in education, and in some cases the police and in others lunacy—for those are the only three things in regard to which the representatives of the large burghs from an administrative point of view are directly interested—there will be serious difficulties as far as this Amendment is concerned.

Mr. E. BROWN: I rise only to ask that, when a reply is given, I may be told whether the word "deliberative" covers the whole of what is meant. Has it a technical meaning, or is it a new word that is chosen? If it means that every vote, except those limited by the proposed words, "except the casting vote," is a deliberative vote, then I have never met the phrase before. I ask for information, as it seems to me to be a new phrase.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish the Lord Advocate, in amending this Clause, would have faced the problem in a better fashion. The one objection which I see to the Clause is that you have three persons attending—the town councillor, the representative of the larger burgh, and the representative of the smaller burgh. It is argued by the Lord Advocate and the Government supporters that it is not fair that the representatives of the small burgh should vote on matters in which there is no payment made by the small burgh, or in which the small burgh is not directly interested. The Lord Advocate will at least agree that the small burgh representative is penalised in regard to voting on certain occasions. He is not allowed to vote on every question that comes before the county council. On other questions the representative of the larger burgh is not allowed to vote. The representative of the smaller burgh, before he or she can vote, must prove that the matter upon which he or she wishes to vote relates to a smaller burgh. The Lord Advocate in explaining the Amendment pointed out that if there was the slightest doubt members would not be allowed to vote.
The objection to this proposal is that in actual practice the thing cannot work. Immediately members at a meeting will start wrangling as to who is entitled to vote and who is not. Every member who attends the council meetings will want to vote as often as he can. One of the worst features of this Clause is that it will force a person, who ought to be independent and free, into the firing line of two or three different groups. Who has to decide whether a person can vote or not? The clerk. Immediately you get a wrangle on this matter, the clerk will be hauled into the firing line. He will be hauled into a position from which he ought to be kept clear. It is not customary to have a roll call vote. In the Glasgow Council it is not common to have a roll call vote unless on very exceptional matters. Here you may have a county council meeting voting by the showing of hands and depending on a member's honesty as to whether he votes or not. Unless you have county councillors descending to the level of spying on one another, you can have no real check as to how this method of "ins and outs" will work at all. I think with my
hon. Friends that the system wants revising, and, speaking personally, I would sooner that every person had a vote. All members should be placed on an equal footing. I believe that within six months of the actual working of this Measure that will be the position of affairs. I would sooner the Lord Advocate had treated all councillors alike, because I think such a course would make for much better local government than the unseemly wrangles which, I think, will result as the outcome of this Clause.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: The Lord Advocate has tried very hard indeed to support a proposition to which he committed himself at an earlier stage in the discussions on this Bill. He committed himself to the proposition that the Provost of a small burgh might be selected as the convener of the county council. I hear that that is also supported by his hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State. On a previous occasion I reminded both the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary of State that if such a gentleman were selected us convener of the county council, he would be presiding over county council meetings and conducting discussions upon which he would be entitled to have neither a voice nor a vote. After all, the Government have left something to the small burghs. They have left them the water supply. Sup posing the subject before the county council was the water supply for the county, would such a convener be in a position either to speak or to vote on the question? Housing, drainage and water supply are things which are still retained by the small burghs, and my contention is that if a representative of such a burgh were elected to the position of convener of the county council when matters of that kind came before the county council, he would not be in a position to take any part in the discussions or to vote upon them.
The position is worse, if we imagine a representative from a large burgh being appointed the convener of the county council. What connection has a large burgh with a county council? It has connection in respect of education, perhaps lunacy, and perhaps the police. It is not so in every case, but there may be cases where the large burgh has a police con
nection with the county council. Only on matters of that kind coming before the county council would such a chairman have either a voice or a vote in the proceedings. I maintain that it is absolutely ridiculous to say that either a representative from a large burgh or a small burgh should be the convener of the county council. Even if the representatives of the burghs had a majority of the representation on the county council, it would not be advisable for them to elect to the position of convener of the county council a man who had a limited vote at a county council meeting. I would appeal to the Lord Advocate to reconsider this matter, because I contend that he took up an absolutely impossible position on the last occasion in maintaining that the representative from burghs had equal voting powers with the representative from the landward areas. I agree that in certain very important matters that come before the county council the small burghs will have a very direct interest. They will have interest in finance, in roads, in education, and in many other things that come before the county council, but, even at the best, the representative of the small burgh cannot expect to exercise the same liberty of action either in speaking or voting at a county council meeting as the man who is elected from the landward area.
I would ask the Lord Advocate to reconsider this matter. It is absurd for him to contend that the representatives from the large burghs or the small burghs are in a position analogous to the representatives from the landward areas. It is clear to those who have had any experience of work done in any county council, that the county council will decide that the man who is to preside over their deliberations must be a man who has the right to speak and vote upon every question that will come before the county council. The Lord Advocate must admit that the representatives from the small burghs or the large burghs cannot, under these circumstances, hold the same position as the representative from the landward area.

Mr. SHINWELL: The Lord Advocate is not to be envied in this matter, because it is clear that he is up against a very awkward difficulty. If any complication arises, it will be because of the Bill itself. Complications are bound to
ensue, once the Government step from the slippery slope of local government reform in Scotland. The initial meetings of the reconstituted county councils in Scotland will be a series of miniature Bedlams, because it will be almost impossible for the county clerk of these new authorities to know what members should vote in respect of one proposal and what members should be prevented from voting. Another complication will arise. Meetings may be convened in connection with the county council to deal with certain matters, yet many of the members who are called to such meetings may be expressly precluded from voting upon the issues involved. Therefore, what on earth will be the use of calling those members to such meetings? It will not be possible to say before the meeting is called what the nature of the business will be as affecting all the members concerned.
As far as I understand it, the Government are anxious to promote centralisation in local government in Scotland. They have told us that time and again. Where is the centralisation in respect of this proposal, when we are to have three sets of members on the county council? One set are to be full members, another set are to be half members, and the third set, presumably, are to be half-baked members. We are to have members representing the small burghs, who will be able to vote only on certain matters concerning themselves, but what these matters are the Lord Advocate is not in a position to tell us. There are to be members representing the large burghs and members representing the landward areas. What is to be the position of the members who represent the landward areas? The members representing the small burghs and the large burghs are to be precluded from voting on certain issues. Presumably, the members representing the landward areas are to vote on all issues that come before the county council. If the Under-Secretary thinks that what I am stating is not accurate, perhaps he will correct me.

Major ELLIOT: Such matters as the water rate are debated in the town council and do not come before the county council.

Mr. SHINWELL: That does not remove my difficulty. On all the major
issues that come before the county councils, the members who represent the landward areas will have the right to vote. If matters such as water and drainage are excluded from the county councils and are dealt with, as I understood the Under-Secretary to state, by the town council, and do not come before the county council, that matter does not arise, but I am in doubt as to whether the Under-Secretary understood the point that I was making. If there arises no doubt in the mind of the Under-Secretary, why cannot he put the matter as clearly as he usually does? It appears to me that a very awkward complication arises. Complications are bound to arise. When you present a complicated Measure of this character, you cannot avoid difficulty. In these circumstances, it is possible to suggest a way out to the Secretary of State. I cannot appeal to the Lord Advocate, because he always makes up his mind a long way ahead, and there is no possibility of any new orientation so far as he is concerned. No such thing would occur to him, but perhaps the Secretary of State is more susceptible to the influence that can be brought to bear during Debate.
May I suggest to the Secretary of State, in view of the difficulty that arises—and there is some difficulty and complication—that it would be wise to withdraw this proposal and allow the newly constituted county councils to work out their own destiny. They may make by-laws, standing orders, rules and regulations governing their conduct, quite sufficient for their guidance, and if they find themselves on the horns of a dilemma not of their making they may come to the right hon. Gentleman and ask for his advice. The members of the county councils will occasionally have to set up committees to deal with various aspects of county council administration. Are the members from the small burghs and the large burghs to have the right to deliberate in respect of the personnel of such committees, or will they vote only in the selection of such committees where those bodies are to deal with matters affecting the small and large burghs? I put that point because this consideration occurs to me; that you start off by setting up a committee to deal with a matter that affects the county council work itself, and may not affect the small or large burghs,
but in the course of time the functions of the committee widen, they are amplified, and the functions of that small committee six months after its inception, may be entirely different from its functions when it was inaugurated.
In view of that complication this point arises, that you may find that a committee of that kind will be dealing with matters affecting the small burghs and the large burghs and not exclusively county council or landward affairs, and yet Members representing the small burghs and the large burghs may not have been represented on the committee. How are these matters to be dealt with? The Lord Advocate has a legal mind, a very brilliant legal mind. Every Member on these benches appreciates that fact, and some of us are rather inclined to the view that he is much too clever, and we would wish it were otherwise. For my own part, I do not like to see so many clever men sitting on the Front Bench opposite. However brilliant the Lord Advocate may be in respect of legal matters, he does not appear to me to have got the right hang of local administration in Scotland, whatever he may know about the theory. It is the same with the Under-Secretary. The Under-Secretary is chock-o-block with theory in these matters, but the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary know very little about the practice of local government. If any hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite had been members of a local authority in Scotland for 14 months, they would know much more about local government affaire than they appear to know at the present time.

Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Gentleman has been a member for years.

Mr. SHINWELL: Quite frankly, and without any disrespect, I must say that that would not appear to be the case from the observations he has made in the Debate to-night. If it is the case I accept it, and I ask him from his great fund of administrative experience in local affairs to give some consideration to the important and complicated issue with which we are now dealing.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I can only speak again by leave of the House; but I am very anxious to make things as clear as I can. We have, as hon. Mem
bers have observed, three classes of persons appearing in the county councils, the landward representatives, the small burgh representatives and the large burgh representatives; but elected for a different set of things. There is nothing new in that. That was the situation under the 1889 Act, where there was a similar provision limiting the exercise of the right to vote by the representatives of the burghs. The basis on which that provision, Section 73, Sub-section 8, of the 1889 Act was based, was unfortunate, because it made a financial interest the test as to the capacity to vote. That was found to be really quite unworkable in some instances. But we have taken quite a different test in this Bill. We have taken what, I think, is a very easy and simple test. It is this: is the business in hand business which relates to a function which the county council as a whole can exercise within the small burghs? Functions which can and cannot be exercised within the small burghs are defined by the statute and are simple. The boundary lines of a county in these respects are simple and county council clerks in Scotland are a competent body. I imagine that they will find it far easier to answer that question than having to work out their own salvation as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) suggests.
One is faced with this difficulty in settling this question. Let me give an illustration. In the case of the County of Renfrewshire, in the draft scheme, taking it broadly, the landward representation is 21, the small burgh representation is 15, making 36, and the larger burgh representation 54. That is 54 as against 36 for the other two interests combined. It is clear that it would not be fair to allow the larger burghs to swamp the rest of the county when their only interest probably is education and police, perhaps only education. It is quite clear to me at any rate, and I am sure the House will appreciate it, that the larger burgh interests ought to be limited to matters with which they are really concerned. The hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) made a point in regard to general finance, but I would point out to him that the subjects in which they are interested are subjects in which the grants are not pooled.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I was not arguing about grants. What about rates?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member's point was as to the allocation of grants.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The Lord Advocate has not really grasped the point I was making There is no question about the distribution of grants. They are not interested as to the manner in which the grant coming from the central education fund in Scotland is to be spent by the education committee, but they are interested in the amount of money necessary to make up the deficit between the amount of the grant and the expenditure on education in the county.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Therefore, they are interested in the expenditure on education. That is perfectly true. The consolidated rate which is going to include all the needs of the county is quite a separate matter. I assumed that the hon. Member was referring to the question of the allocation of the general grant of money to the different needs of the county, but it so happens that the things they are interested in do not come into the pool and they have no interest in it. Then the question arises as to what is fair as regards the small burghs. There again, I agree that it might have been simpler to say that the representatives of the small burghs should be free to vote on every subject which came before the county council, but that again would have been a bit unfair if we allowed the small burghs to vote on matters in which the landward areas alone were interested. Therefore, it seems fair that the small burghs should be allowed to vote on everything except matters which solely concern the landward areas. That is the perfectly sound lines on which we proceed.
One or two minor points have been raised. One hon. Member referred to the deliberative vote. Surely a chairman is chosen for his capacity to act as chairman. I assume that is the basis on which local authorities elect their chairmen, and it may be an advantage if he has no direct personal interest in the business in hand; he may make all the better chairman. I for one would agree that eligibility for chairmen should arise
whatever part of the county he lives in. We thought it would be unfair that while they would be eligible to be chairmen the representatives of the larger burghs should not be entitled to force one of their own men on the rest of the county council for the whole of the rest of the business in which the smaller burghs and landward areas were alone interested. I do not think that is an unreasonable proposal. With regard to the distinction between the deliberative votes and the casting votes, the hon. Member for Leith asked if it was a new distinction. It is not; you will find it in Section 73 (5) of the 1889 Act. With regard to the general difficulty as to voting power the hon. Member for Linlithgow said that this difficulty arises out of this Bill. It does not, The difficulty existed in the 1889 Act, and I submit that we have very much simplified and indeed, I think, have solved it by the demarcation between business which we have taken. We have divided along the line of functions, not on the line of financial interests, which proved a difficult one and led to litigation in the courts. I think I have now dealt with all the matters raised as far as I can remember. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles asked a direct question as to whether the representatives of the large burghs will be entitled to vote, but I think I have already answered that question. He would be eligible to be elected, but not eligible to vote. This is a fair solution and a clear solution of a question which primâ facie presents difficulties, and I ask the House to agree to the Amendment.

Mr. WESTWOOD: There is one point which the right hon. Gentleman has not made clear, and that is the fact that the representatives of the large burghs have an indirect interest in the whole of the expenditure in the county, because the more money spent on roads, for instance, the less money available for education.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I agree that when you come to the last bit they will have an indirect interest, but they are directly interested in the amount of expenditure on education in the county as a whole. It will be no difficult matter to arrange the business so that the different matters will not be jumbled up.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Election of reconstituted county councils).

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 14, line 3, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that any reference in any Act to a triennial election of county councillors shall be deemed not to include a reference to the first election of members of the reconstituted county council to be held in pursuance of this Sub-section.
County council elections have always been held triennally, and it is proposed under this Bill that they shall continue to be so held. The last county council elections were held in 1926, and the next county council election will he held in 1929; that is, the new county council election will he held in 1929, and the one following that in 1932, and so on. There are certain Acts which lay down that where a triennial election of a county council takes place these Acts apply and there is the particular problem of the Temperance (Scotland) Act which has a proviso to that effect. We have consulted with those in Scotland who are concerned in this matter both pro and con, and it is clear they think it is undesirable that the 1929 election should be counted as a triennial election for this purpose, and to avoid the possibility of this taking place I am moving this Amendment. There is agreement on the part of the parties concerned, and I hope the House will accept it.

Mr. BARR: I just wish in a word to thank the Government for this arrangement. I speak particularly on behalf of the Scottish Temperance Alliance, but I am glad to know that other bodies are equally agreed, and it will greatly simplify procedure and prevent what might have been two elections coming one year after another, and it will give a matter of four years, I take it, until the forces rally together again.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) has an Amendment on the Paper—in page 14, line 16, after the word "any," to insert the words "large or"—which is covered by a following Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, In page 14, line 16, to leave out the word "small."
This Amendment and the following Amendment—in page 14, line 17, after the word "county," to insert the words "for any purpose"—are put down to carry out the promise made during the Committee stage of the Bill, and they provide that any person who is an elector resident within the county should be eligible for election on the county council.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what he means by the words "for any other purpose" after "county"?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is to cover both large burghs and small ones.

Mr. JOHNSTON: You could put them simply "or large burgh." I could understand that, but to say "any burgh included within the county for any purpose" seems to me to be extraordinary phraseology, and I should like to be very clear that there is no other purpose or possibility covered by these words. If the purpose, as the Lord Advocate says, is to bring in simply small burghs, why not say so?

The LORD ADVOCATE: There are certain large burghs which are not included in the county for certain purposes, and some large burghs which are included for some purposes. Therefore, to include those will be wrong.

Mr. JOHNSTON: That makes it worse. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has moved to take out the word "small," in other words, it is simply to be voted at an election for town councils for any burgh included in the county. What is the idea of "for any purpose "?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I will try to make it clear again. Every small burgh is within the county for certain purposes. Every large burgh is not included for the purpose of county council business. We do not want to include those. Therefore, we have to put in the phrase
included within the county for any purpose.
If they are not "included for any purpose," we do not want to include them here.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Amendment is to leave out the word "small." Therefore, the words that remain are
any burgh included within the county.

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is so.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Clause then reads:
election of town councillors of any burgh included within the county.

The LORD ADVOCATE "for any purpose."

Mr. JOHNSTON: You have got a burgh "included within the county." That is sufficient definition. If the burgh were not included within the county, it would not come within the scope of this Clause.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am very anxious to clear away any misunderstanding. There are certain burghs which are not included within the county, but, if I may use the term, they are deemed to be included within the county for particular purposes. They are large burghs. There are other large burghs which are not so deemed to be or are not made part of the county. What we want to do is to bring into this qualification Clause the former ones, the large burghs that are included for some purpose within the county. Equally we want to leave out of the qualifications Clause the large burghs that are not so included.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am afraid the Lord Advocate has not made himself clear.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I cannot do any better.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman. There are three types of burghs referred to in the Bill. There is the small burgh, there is the large burgh and there is the county city burgh. If I understand the matter aright, the only ones that will be excluded, the only ratepayers or electors that will be excluded from offering their services in any part of the county will be the ratepayers or electors in the county city burgh, namely, those of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Dundee. I did not move earlier to-day an Amendment which stood in my name as I thought that the words of the Government would concede all that had been argued before on the Committee stage. That was the right of any individual living in a large burgh to be in a position to offer his services directly to the
electors in any part of the county. In he large burghs the ratepayers were being called upon to pay their full share in connection with education, and unless provision was made for them to offer their services and to give the electors in the landward areas a chance of selecting them, they were placed at a great disadvantage in comparison with the situation at the present time.
Under the existing law, even a person who is not a ratepayer can offer his or her services to the electors for education authority purposes. If the Lord Advocate suggests that any large burghs are excluded that does not meet the claim that was made, nor the promise that was made during the Committee stage of the Bill. No one made the claim that those not paying rates, or those who were not electors in connection with any particular area—where they had no Hay in the county administration—should have the right to offer their services. But I understand that under the proposal which we are now discussing, if this word "small" is omitted and if the next Amendment to insert the words "for any purpose" is carried, there will be a third Amendment to leave out the words "small burgh but excluding any large burgh" and to insert "such burgh as aforesaid." If these Amendments are carried, I understand it will be made quite clear that the elector or ratepayer in any large burgh will have the right to offer his or her services, and the landward area electors will have the right to elect him or her on the county council.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member is wrong in assuming that the expression "large burghs" excludes the burghs which he has mentioned. The expression includes every burgh, whether it is a county of a city or not, having over 20,000 inhabitants.

Mr. E. BROWN: And Arbroath.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I think that what the hon. Members opposite desire is covered by this Clause. Let me put it in another way. Their desire is that residents in every large burgh which sends representatives to the county council for any purpose is to be qualified for representation as under this Clause. That end is secured by the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 14, line 17, after the word "county" insert the words "for any purpose."

In page 14, line 21, leave out the words "small burgh but excluding any large burgh," and insert instead thereof the words "such burgh as aforesaid."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT (1ST MARCH).

Resolution reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES, REVISED SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.

CLASS II.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £380,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for sundry Dominion Services, including a Grant-in-Aid, for advances in certain cases on account of liabilities assumed by the Government of the Irish Free State in connection with Compensation for Damage to Property or with Land Purchase, for certain ex-gratia Grants, and for Expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State."

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
It is shocking that there should be no representative of the Treasury and no representative of the Dominions Office present on this occasion. We have this treatment from a party which prates about constitutionalism. Look at the gathering we have on the Treasury Bench. We have the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has many virtues, but nobody would credit him with any quality for looking after the financial position of the country. Then there is the Under-Secretary. If, as I understand, the Motion for Adjournment is going to be accepted, I need say no more.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BILL [Lords].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th February]:
That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: I cannot think that those who back this Bill expect it to be passed without due Debate. There are several aspects of the Bill which have been considered from time to time, and I must remind the House that on a previous occasion when this Bill was presented it was not passed. True, the subject of the Bill was considered at some length by a Select Committee, but I believe that legislation of this kind is wholly unnecessary, would be detrimental to the interests concerned, and would be against the public interest. There is in existence an Institute of British Architects, which for many reasons and in many ways commands the respect of the general public, and it is a singular comment on that Institute that those who are, quite rightly, its supporters should not be content with the merits of that Institute as it exists to-day, but should endeavour to rely on the statutory compulsion of those engaged in the architectural profession to join the Institute.
A number of circulars have from time to time been sent to hon. Members, and I am entirely at a loss to understand on what ground some of the arguments in favour of this Bill can be advanced. It is said that if only members who come within the registration scheme involved in this Bill are allowed to draw plans and design new buildings, the public safety will be secured and the amenities of the countryside will be safeguarded. I should profoundly disagree with that proposition. It is within the knowledge of hon. Members of this House that some of the most outrageous designs up and down the countryside have emerged from the brains of men who were already members of the Royal Institute of British Architects. [An HON. MEMBER: "Name!"] Far be it from me publicly to announce the name of any particular architect in this connection, but it is the fact that up and down England to-day, although there are new building schemes going on which show a marked advance on what has been done
in the past, here and there you will find the most outrageous, ugly buildings, which completely spoil the amenities of some of the most delightful parts of England.
There is absolutely no distinction between architects who are members of the Institute and those surveyors or architects, as they may be, who are outside it. You will find that some of the most deplorable designs are the result of the work of members of the Royal Institute of British Architects, while some of the most attractive housing schemes are the result of the careful thought of men who have never aspired to be, never hope to be, members of that Institute. This Bill would seriously handicap professional employment for a very large number of people such as engineers, surveyors and others engaged in the building trade, who have never been trained to be and do not want to be architects within the restricted sense of the word under this legislation. To subject those people to the tyranny it is desired to set up under this Bill, would, in my view, be something which is opposed to the traditional spirit of this country.
I will ask the House to consider what is involved in this Measure. A council is to be set up which is to maintain a register of architects. That council is to appoint officers. Then there is a definition of persons who are entitled to be registered without examination. The council is to prescribe future qualifications for registration. It may remove the names of persons from the register, and may restore other names to the register. An appeal against refusal to register may be made. And so on. On what grounds can it be urged that the designing of buildings, whether for private or public use, has fallen into such a low state that a Measure of this kind is necessary? In my view, there is absolutely no justification for a Bill of this kind, and it is to the prejudice of the reputation of the Royal Institute of British Architects that any Measure such as this should be presented to the House. If that Institute is what it purports to be, if it be worthy of public esteem, then it should rely upon its own merits to attract the membership of those who are entitled to be regarded as architects of the first rank. To say that men who are engaged in the plainer and more utilitarian branches of public
building should be excluded from that Institute merely because they fail to comply with the provisions which it is proposed to set up under this Bill is altogether unreasonable, and I hope that at this late hour the House will not give a Second Reading to a Measure which has previously been rejected, for which there is no public demand, and which certainly ought not to command the support of this House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It fills me with surprise when I see hon. Members seeking to sneak this Bill through the House of Commons in this way.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: It is not a question of sneaking the Bill through because it is down on the Order Paper.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Up to the present, no one has taken the usual course of explaining the Bill to the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I am ready to explain it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think it is the duty of the promoters of this Bill to explain the Measure to their colleagues.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: This Bill has already been explained in the House and hon. Members are fully acquainted with the whole of the Clauses, its implications and its meaning. I am only waiting to find out those who are antagonistic to this Bill in order that I may be able to reply to their arguments.

Mr. BUCHANAN: When a Bill of this kind is brought forward it is usual for some hon. Member to get up and explain its provisions. There is contained in this Measure vicious principles which cannot be commended to the House. It has been said that this Measure is a first-class trade union bill. It is very strange that hon. Members who are supporting this Measure should have been engaged not long ago in smashing trade unions connected with bricklayers and others. Now the same hon. Members are proposing a trade union for architects. Take the proposals contained in Clause 8 which deals with the Discipline Committee. It says:
 The council may (subject in the case of persons removed from the register under the immediately preceding Section to the approval of the Discipline Committee) at any time restore to the register any name or entry removed therefrom.
We are not told whether this Discipline Committee will act like the General
Medical Council. Hon. Members know that they meet in private and when they find that a person is guilty of some offence they can remove him from the register. Such inquiries are held in private, and a person may have his name removed from the register for any particular reason including professional jealousy. Very often people who are removed from the register are placed in a position in which it is impossible for them to earn a livelihood. The Discipline Committee may remove any man they like and his means of livelihood might be taken away from him.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Only for an offence against the rules of the profession.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The worst form of cruelty I know is that of cruelty to children, but even in that case you limit by Statute the sentence that can be passed for that crime. Cruelty to children is punishable either by a short sentence or a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment. The Statute says that a person may be fined for cruelty to children, but, if a man commits some so-called offence against this body, he is going to be punished even worse than by being detained in prison for a week or two, or fined; it is proposed to take from him the right to earn the necessary livelihood for his wife and family. [Interruption.] I cannot see where I am wrong. The most cruel thing that can be done to a man is the thing that is now proposed. The Bill says:
For the purpose of holding any inquiry under this Section as to whether any person registered under this Act has been guilty of any conduct disgraceful to him in a professional respect.
What does that mean? The Medical Council do things which possibly are in many respects right, but, on the question of the professional point of view, a man may have wrong associations—morally wrong associations, say in the Divorce Court. Under this Bill as it is now worded, a man who has been divorced might lose his position. There is nothing to hinder that. That has happened already under the Medical Council, and there is nothing to hinder its being construed as wrong professional conduct, because the words "professional respect" might mean anything. No doubt it might be an excellent thing for us to
establish a very high code of moral conduct for others, but that has nothing to do with architecture. It might be that an architect drank too much, and it might even be possible that the best architect might have been better if he had drunk more. What does "professional conduct" mean? It might be construed in the interests of some competitor who sees the work being taken from him, or some group who see another man taking a job from them because he is clever. They might come along and frame up some sort of charge that he was drinking too much, and, therefore, committing an offence against professional conduct. Then whom do they elect to try him? Possibly their own friends. The Bill says:
at which inquiry such person shall be entitled to be heard.
I am surprised at the graciousness shown on this point; I advise the promoters of the Bill to reconsider their position. He is entitled to be heard, and that, at any rate, is a concession. Then it says:
There shall be appointed annually a committee to be called the 'Discipline Committee' consisting of eight members.
May I point out also that he is not allowed to be represented by counsel; he cannot bring his lawyer; all that he is entitled to is to be heard? Being heard may mean little or it may mean much, but, according to the Bill, he is only entitled to be heard. Why should not a man, if he is being tried for his life, get at least the right that a Law Court would give him—the right to bring counsel, the right to be properly defended? Here is a man who is going to be deprived of the right to earn his livelihood, and he himself is only to be heard: he is to have no right to bring any person with him. Who is to compose the Discipline Committee? There is one member appointed by the Commissioner of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, one by the Minister of Health, one by the president of the Law Society, one by the Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, and one by the Ulster Society of Architects. Where is the Welsh member? What crime has poor Wales committed? Wales produces a magician who can cure unemployment in a year. Why has it not one representative on this body? There is this other peculiar thing, that the Bill is not to apply to Northern Ireland. I wonder at the hon. Member for Ayr
Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) sponsoring a. Bill of this kind.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Clause 21.

Mr. BUCHANAN: "In the event of this Act being so extended to Northern Ireland"—

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: They will have representation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Whether it applies to Northern Ireland or not, they are to have a representative, while Wales has not got one at all. I am sure the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) has a legal mind. I am certain he could not have taken his part at the bar of Scotland without understanding it. Why should not the man who is described as the Pooh Bah of politics have representation? The Secretary for Scotland controls public health, prisons, and every service in Scotland. Why should he not have this added one?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: There is representation for the Incorporation of Architects in Scotland.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is the kind of interruption one likes to get, because it is seeking after truth, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken. It is the Incorporation of Architects. I said the Secretary of State for Scotland. I want him to be placed in an equivalent position to the Minister of Health in England. Why should Scotland be let down?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Give me a chance of speaking for Scotland.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I will see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman gets every chance. At the moment I am asking why Scotland should be placed in an inferior position, not only to the Minister of Health but to the First Commissioner of Works. What experience has he more than the Secretary of State for Scotland? Is it that the person who fills that Cabinet post is a more intelligent man than the Secretary of State for Scotland? It may be, and it may be not. The President of the Law Society has also a chance in this matter, and there is one member to be appointed by the Ulster Society of Architects. The council may convene a meeting of the disciplinary committee
from time to time as may be necessary in order to hold these inquiries. Now under the law it has been held that in the case of trade unions the person so summoned must have a certain period of notice of what he is to be summoned for, and the indictment must be stated in full detail, showing the alleged offence. Further, the persons accusing him must give their names and the man must know who are his prosecutors. Here we have this position that, under the Bill, a man is to be hauled up and possibly his livelihood taken from him, but he is not to know who is the libeller of his character. Will the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) show me—

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I will, if you give me a chance.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will he show me the Clause which gives a right to a person who is to be hauled before the committee to know who his prosecutor is? Has a man the right to have the indictment placed before him so that he may know what is his alleged crime? I cannot find any such provisions, and the fact that the hon. Member is silent shows it does not give him these rights. Look at a man's position. He may have a charge of this kind against him. Even a criminal must be tried within a specified time limit, but under this Bill whenever the disciplinary committee decide it, they may hold a charge over a man for one, two or three years. We have in this country bodies which have done useful work but which are not represented. Why should the building trade unions be left out, and why is the general council of the Trade Union Congress not included? Nobody has done more than the co-operative movement, and why should not that body be represented? Instead of that, we have it deliberately narrowed down.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The hon. Member has asked me several questions, and there are only four or five minutes left in which I can answer them. If he is asking me questions, the least he can do is to allow me to reply.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have a right to speak, with all due deference to the hon. and gallant Member, who has not yet
been appointed Speaker of the House. I have not yet exhausted my right to speak.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: But you ask me questions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You will have another day. There will be a number of days before May, because after May you are not likely to be here. I see the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper) sitting beside the hon. Member. He, too, no doubt, has to do with a conspiracy on another Measure of this kind.

Mr. COUPER: On a point of Order. Is it right for the hon. Member to jump from one subject to address you, Mr. Speaker, on another, when I have no opportunity of replying?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member will have an opportunity of replying on another occasion.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Before the hon. Member for Gorbals leaves the point about co-operative societies, will he read to us Clause 18 and see whether that would apply?

Mr. BUCHANAN: At the moment the point with which I am dealing is so important that I must address myself to it. I am one of those persons who believe that if a man has to be tried for any-kind of offence he should be tried before a legal tribunal. I would prefer to be tried by the Sheriff in Scotland and by justices in England.

Mr. COUPER: Has that anything to do with the subject before the House? The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has departed to another subject.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Couper) has accused me of making certain statements and I have not taken part in the Debate at all.

Mr. COUPER: I meant the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. BUCHANAN: I hope that that will be the last occasion on which my constituency will be confused with another constituency. Gorbals is Gorbals. The point I wish to make is, why should not a man have an appeal to the High Court?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Read the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have read it.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The hon. Member is frightened to allow me to reply to the statements he has made.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: But it is true.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Hon. Members on the other side know me. I have plenty of faults but there is one thing of which I cannot be accused, and that is fear. [Interruption.] An hon. Member has asked me about Clause 18. I think the House ought to be made aware of what Clause 18 means:
Nothing in this Act shall prevent a body corporate, firm or partnership from carrying on the professional business of a Registered Architect.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 18th March.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.